The Educational Value of Integrating a Learning … University The Educational Value of Integrating a Learning Management System and a Social Networking Platform Submitted in partial

Rhodes University

The Educational Value of Integrating aLearning Management System and a Social

Networking Platform

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the

degree of bachelor of science (honours)of Rhodes University

Chikumbutso David Gremu

Grahamstown, South Africa

November, 2012

Abstract

Rhodes University uses a Moodle-based Learning Management System (LMS)

called RUconnected to manage the delivery of course and course materials

and other resources to students. It would be pedagogically desirable to en-

gage students in peer learning activities online through the e-learning plat-

form provided by the university. These activities can be done through the

introduction of social networking features like friendship and group manage-

ment, portfolios to enable students organise their work and receive feedback

from peers, and blogs to promote creation for content etc. Research indicates

that this sort of interaction can be encouraged and supported by the use of a

Social Networking System (SNS). The Mahara SNS was identified as an ideal

choice for trial in the Rhodes university environment because it was devel-

oped for academic use, has social networking features available in most SNSs

and also because it integrates with Moodle. Mahara was integrated with a

test implementation of Moodle that was customised to mirror the set-up of

Rhodes University’s main Moodle system. Testing and evaluation was car-

ried out with a class of students over a period of five weeks. Analysis of the

data gathered indicated that social networking services can have educational

benefits if integrated in the students’ studies but educational institutions in-

tending on following the path should proceed with caution as many factors

can affect the result.

i

ACM Computing Classification System Classification

Thesis classification under ACM Computing Classification System (1998

version, valid through 2012)

K.3.1[Computer Uses in Education]:Distance Learning

General Terms:e-Learning, Social Networking, Formal Learning, Informal

Learning, Non-formal Learning

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Mici Halse, for the guidance, support

and encouragement she gave me throughout the study. The period I have

worked with her has made me to understand the research process and I have

developed an interest in research which I never had before.

I would also like to thank Ingrid Sieborger for her assistance in the devel-

opment of the questionnaire. Without her assistance, I would have omitted

critical information which would have made data analysis and making con-

clusions difficult.

I would like to acknowledge the financial and technical support of Telkom,

Tellabs, Stortech, Genband, Easttel, Bright Ideas 39 and THRIP through

the Telkom Centre of Excellence in the Department of Computer Science at

Rhodes University.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Karl van der Schyff, for tire-

lessly assisting me during the implementation of the project, staff from the

IT department of Rhodes University who also assisted me during the im-

plementation and all the participants in the study, who spared their time

to provide feedback on the use of the integrated system, without which, the

study would have been a failure.

ii

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Motivation for the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Brief Description of Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 Organisation of the Research Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Literature Review 7

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 E-Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3.1 Asynchronous E-learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3.2 Synchronous E-learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4 Blended Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.5 Peer Learning, Peer Tutoring and Peer Assessment . . . . . . 16

2.5.1 Peer Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.5.2 Peer Tutoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.5.3 Peer Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.6 Social Networking Sites (SNSs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.6.1 Social Networking in South Africa and selected countries 20

iii

CONTENTS iv

2.6.2 Use of Social Networking in Academia . . . . . . . . . 21

2.7 Social Networking Platform Features Supporting Learning . . 24

2.7.1 E-portfolios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.7.2 Blogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.7.3 Podcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.8 Learning Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.9 E-Learning with Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3 Design 31

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.2 The Moodle LMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.3 The Elgg SNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.4 The Original Project Plan and Problems Faced . . . . . . . . 35

3.5 A Solution to the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.6 The Mahara SNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.7 The Integration of Moodle and Mahara . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.8 How the students Used the Integrated System . . . . . . . . . 40

3.9 Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4 Implementation and Results 43

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.2 Implementation Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.3 Implementation of the SSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.4 Development of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

CONTENTS v

4.5 Data Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.6 Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.7 Respondents’ Demographic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.8 Use of RUconnected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.9 Use of and Familiarity with SNSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.10 The Impact of Integrating Moodle and Mahara . . . . . . . . 54

4.10.1 Perceived Usefulness of the Features of Mahara . . . . 54

4.10.2 Perceived Impact of Using the Integrated System for

Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.10.3 Perceived Usability of the Integrated System . . . . . . 58

4.10.4 Perceived Appropriateness of using Social Networking

as a Pedagogical Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5 Discussion 64

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.2 Use of RUconnected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.3 Familiarity with and Use of SNSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.4 Use of the Integrated System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.5 Usability of the Integrated System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.6 Educational Benefits of Integrating a LMS and a SNS . . . . . 73

6 Conclusion and Further Work 76

6.1 Discussion and Inferences Drwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6.2 Statement of Contribution Made to the Field . . . . . . . . . . 79

6.3 Further Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

References 80

CONTENTS vi

A Questionnaire 88

List of Tables

4.1 Distribution of respondents according to courses . . . . . . . . 49

vii

List of Figures

4.1 Respondents’ distribution by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.2 Respondents’ distribution by age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.3 Respondents’ distribution by year of study . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.4 Students’ use of RUconnected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.5 Students’ perspectives of the useful features of RUconnected . 51

4.6 Effectiveness of RUconnected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.7 List of SNSs the students use or have ever used . . . . . . . . 53

4.8 Students’ use of SNSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.9 Students’ perspective of the useful features of SNSs . . . . . . 55

4.10 Rating of the usefulness of the features of Mahara . . . . . . . 56

4.11 Students’ perspective of the impact of using integrated RU-

connected and Mahara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.12 Rating of the usefulness and the impact of using the RUcon-

nected integrated with Mahara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

viii

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Introduction of the Internet and the Web revolutionalised the way infor-

mation was disseminated and accessed by enabling access to electronic copies

of information from any other place and at any time, and by displaying the

information in formats which are easily understood by human beings. The

Internet and the Web also made the delivery of teaching and learning on-

line possible and replaced the traditional distance learning where learning

materials were distributed as hard copies. Internet-based e-learning has be-

come increasingly prevalent with many education and training institutions

implementing online Learning Management Systems (LMSs) to assist them

to deliver training to learners who cannot be physically present in class at the

time a course is being offered, or even to complement synchronous classroom

learning.

The inception of Web 2.0 technology saw the proliferation of Social Net-

work Sites (SNSs), which enable users to create communities and interact in

the online space. This capability of SNSs to enable users to interact online

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2

led to the development of SNSs to be used in education with the aim of pro-

moting learner interactions. Two SNSs which were developed to be used for

educational purposes are Elgg and Mahara.

1.1 Motivation for the Research

Rhodes University uses a Moodle-based system called RUconnected to man-

age the delivery of courses and course materials to students and also as a

platform to engage staff and students. The system runs on the FreeBSD op-

erating system and the version of Moodle which was being used at the time

of the research was version 1.9. Some of the uses of the RUconnected LMS

are as follows:

1. A repository for course materials - Students use the system to

access course materials;

2. Administration and submission of course assignments - Lectur-

ers upload course assignments on the system for the students and the

students use the system to submit their completed assignments. Staff

use the system to communicate student marks and to provide feedback

on student’s work;

3. Advertisement of information to students - Rhodes Administra-

tion and other staff use RUconnected to advertise various activities to

students; and

4. Communication among the users of the system - RUconnected

allows users who are enrolled on a course to communicate either through


a forum or to have a one-on-one chat through the inbuilt messaging

system.

LMSs including RUconnected, by design, support well the creation of

content by staff and the subsequent distribution of the content to learners.

Little or no support is provided for learners to interact, create content and

actively participate in the e-learning process [36]. Their focus is on institu-

tions and courses rather than on students [8], which limits their capability

to support different teaching and learning styles. In a LMS, students are

mostly consumers of content created by staff and do not have an opportu-

nity to author their own content or co-author content. On the other hand,

SNSs which were developed to support learning allow learners to participate

in the creation of content and they also facilitate collaboration and interac-

tion among students and between students and staff. Despite LMSs having

the limitations above, and SNSs being able to support the functions LMSs

do not adequately support, LMSs are still very successful, widespread and

popular [8]. The different functions LMSs and SNSs support make the two

systems to be complementary and they cannot displace each other.

In order to improve the focus of LMSs to support the different teach-

ing and learning styles, LMSs should shift their focus from institutions and

courses to allow students to have an active role in the learning process not

just as a mere consumer of content but also as a participant. This could be

achieved by either modifying LMSs to include the specific social network tools

which support the functions LMSs do not adequately support, or through the

integration of a LMS and a SNS to take advantage of the useful features in

both systems.


There have been several projects where SNSs and LMSs were integrated

with the aim of overcoming the limitations in LMSs. One of the projects was

the integration of Coome LMS and Facebook SNS by Rozac et al. [36]. The

aim of the project was to improve the interactions in the Coome LMS using

social networking features provided by Facebook. Similarly, Catalyst, a New

Zealand-based software development company developed the Elgg integration

block which was used to integrate Elgg and Moodle through a single-sign-

on (SSO) allowing users authenticated with Moodle to access Elgg without

being re-authenticated. According to [37], the Elgg integration block built by

Catalyst only worked with the versions of Elgg prior to version 1.0. Version

1.0 of Elgg introduced changes which caused most of the plugins to fail. This

caused frustrations among the developers of the Elgg integration block who

then moved on to develop the Mahara system, a learner-centred SNS which

also integrates with Moodle [26]. No further literature on similar works on

the integration of a SNS and a LMS was found suggesting the need for an

investigation of the pedagogical benefits of integrating a LMS and SNS.

It was also observed that, at the time the paper on the integration of

Coome and Facebook by Rozac et al. was published, the integrated system

was not yet implemented and tested in an academic environment to determine

the impact it will have on students’ learning. Similary, no evidence was found

where studies were done to investigate the pedagogical benefits of integrating

Moodle and Elgg or Moodle and Mahara. Considering that there was already

a study by Rozac et al. which used a SNS not necessarily developed for

educational use, a study using a SNS developed to support students’ learning

was deemed necessary, and was expected to provide a different angle of results


and to contribute to the knowledge on the use of social network tools in

LMSs. This knowledge is very limited at the moment, and such a study

would further assist in making decisions on the use of social networking to

support students’ learning.

Considering the rich features available in Mahara for learning and the

power Moodle offers as a LMS in terms of course content management and

delivery, they were deemed good candidates to integrate so as to investigate

the integration of a LMS and a SNS and try to gauge the impact the addition

of a SNS would have on students’ learning.

1.2 Brief Description of Research Approach

A LMS, Moodle and a SNS, Mahara, (both open source) were integrated

through a SSO. The integrated system was tested with the students who

registered for a Computer Science literary class (code CS1L2) for a period of 5

weeks. At the end of the test period, the students were requested to complete

an online questionnaire which was developed using the questionnaire plugin

for Moodle. An email was also sent to the tutors in the course requesting

them to provide feedback on their experience using the system and their

opinion on the suitability of using SNSs for learning.

1.3 Organisation of the Research Work

This thesis is organised into several chapters. Chapter 2 reviews the related

literature on e-Learning, Peer Learning and Social Networking which estab-


lishes the background and related work. Chapter 3 discusses the design of

the project which include the method used to collect data and how it fitted

with the study, how the data was analysed, and the ethical issues which were

considered. Chapter 4 discusses the technical implementation of the project

and presents the results which were obtained. Chapter 5 discusses the results

which are presented in chapter 4 and based on the discussions, conclusions

are drawn in Chapter 6.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This project involves the investigation of the educational value of integrating

a LMS and SNS using Moodle as a LMS and Mahara as a SNS. A review of

literature on learning which happen both online and offline and how people

interact within a social network will help to build the theory and under-

standing of the interactions in the two environments under investigation. A

review of literature on learning will cover the learning which happen offline

among peers, the learning which happens online using LMSs (e-learning), the

different learning methods which happens online and their advantages and

disadvantages. A review of literature on social networking will cover inter-

actions which happen in the online social network environment using online

SNSs.

7

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.2 Learning

Learning can either be formal, non-formal or informal. According to [32], for-

mal learning is always organised and structured, and has learning objectives

with the objective of the learner being to gain knowledge, skills and/or com-

petencies. Informal learning on the other hand is never organised, has not

set objective in terms of learning outcomes and is never intentional from a

learner’s point of view. Non-formal learning lies between formal and informal

learning and it is organised and can or cannot have learning objectives.

2.3 E-Learning

Different authors use different terminologies including online learning, Inter-

net learning, distributed learning, networked learning, tele-learning, virtual

learning, computer-assisted learning, web-based learning and distance learn-

ing interchangeably with the term e-learning [1] [17] [30], making it difficult

to come up with a generic term to define e-learning. The common factor

in all these terms is the use of technology in the delivery of teaching and

learning. Anderson [1] defines online learning as the delivery of teaching and

learning over the Internet; Welsh [47] defines e-learning as the delivery of

teaching and learning over the Internet and intranet; and Itmazi [17] in his

definition of e-learning included any other multimedia technologies in addi-

tion to the Internet and intranet as the delivery media. According to [30],

e-learning incorporates all educational activities carried out by individuals

or groups either online or offline, synchronously or asynchronously via net-

worked or standalone computers and other electronic devices. Naidu [30]


breaks e-learning down into the following modalities:

1. Individualized self-paced online e-learning where an individual

learner accesses learning materials online;

2. Individualized self-paced offline e-learning where an individual

learner accesses learning materials offline;

3. Synchronous group-based e-learning where a group of learners

work together in real time via intranet or Internet; and

4. Asynchronous group-based e-learning where a group of learners

work together through Internet or intranet but their interactions are

not done in real time.

This thesis adopts and consistently use the term “e-learning” and it is used

to mean the delivery of teaching and learning over a networked or standalone

electronic platform. Based on this definition, learning which takes place

through the Internet, intranet or storage media like CD-ROMs and DVDs

will be considered to be part of e-learning.

Many universities around the world have installed facilities for e-learning

such as LMSs, and other online learning resources, video-conferencing tech-

nologies and other audio-visual technologies, making e-learning “part of the

normal educational provision of ‘conventional’ campus-based universities”

than as a tool for distance learning as it has been viewed traditionally [14, p.

62]. Adoption and implementation of e-learning in universities has increased

in recent years mainly due to increased ease of access to Information and

Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the continuous decrease in the cost


of implementation of these technologies (to which reduced hardware costs

has been a factor) [30]. A study by [14] on what university teachers think

e-learning is good for in their teaching found that e-learning technologies can

provide information to students, support occasional online communication,

help to engage students in online discussions, and support knowledge-building

tasks. All these activities do not require students to be at the same loca-

tion or to interact in real time if an asynchronous LMS is used. The key

attribute of e-learning using an asynchronous LMS is the flexibility it pro-

vides in eliminating the need for learners and instructors to be at the same

location during course delivery and this has made asynchronous e-learning

popular and successful.

Learners’ self-motivation is very critical in e-learning especially in indi-

vidualized self-paced, offline learning, where an individual learner is at the

centre of the learning with no interaction and support from other learners and

instructors. It is very unlikely for an individual learner, studying offline, to

complete a course with the absence of self-motivation. In order to increase

learners’ motivation, e-learning modules should be interactive, interesting

and informative [23].

The different types of e-learning may be appropriate in different situa-

tions and may produce different results if used in similar situations. Success

of e-learning is dependent on the delivery method and course content [23].

Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning support different purposes [16] and

it important that before an e-learning method is selected, the implementers

should ensure that it is appropriate for the intended objective. Content used

in a particular type of learning should also match with the objective to be


achieved.

2.3.1 Asynchronous E-learning

Asynchronous e-learning is the type of e-learning where learners study at the

time of their convenience, and does not require simultaneous participation of

instructors and learners [23]. This type of learning is commonly facilitated

by media like email, online discussion groups or forums , bulletin boards etc.

The learning materials used in this type of e-learning may include audio, text,

graphics, video, animation or a combination of some or all of these features

in order to make learning easier and more exciting. The key attribute of

asynchronous e-learning is the flexibility it offers to learners in terms of study

times and location.

Advantages of Asynchronous E-learning

Asynchronous e-learning is the common type of e-learning being used by dif-

ferent universities and organisations [42]. Its popularity is mainly due to the

flexibility it offers to learners in terms of independence of study times, loca-

tion and availability of space [23]. Where a LMS is used, learners log into

the LMS at the time of their convenience, download course materials, and

read and send messages to their teachers and fellow learners. Learners from

different locations and time zones can participate in the same course and

have access to the same learning materials at any time and from any other

location. All the learners also have access to up-to-date course materials be-

cause changes of the course content in the LMS are reflected immediately [1].

Discussions in asynchronous e-learning systems are recorded and are acces-


sible to any other learner who logs into the system [23]. Learners who are

trailing behind in the course benefit by referencing the discussion threads

and this assists them with the directions the course is taking making it easy

for them to catch up with their fellow learners.

Asynchronous e-learning allows learners to plan and take control of their

learning times and they also have control over the pace they conduct their

studies [23]. Absence of pressure to complete a course allows learners to pro-

ceed to the next level of the course after fully understanding the material

they are currently studying. Learners also have control over the order in

which they conduct studies [16]. This allows them to skip learning materials

they already know and concentrate on what they need to learn, enabling

them to successfully complete a course earlier than originally planned. Some

asynchronous e-learning systems provide features to track progress of learn-

ers, and for the learners to bookmark a course in order to be able to stop

and resume a course from a particular point [10]. These features are impor-

tant because they can be used by instructors to provide proper guidance to

learners and also for learners to easily track and manage their progress.

Flexibility of combining learning and work facilitates situated learning or

immediate application of knowledge and skills gained during the course [1]

which can further enhance a student’s understanding of the subject. When

asynchronous e-learning is used to complement other types of learning like

classroom learning in what is called blended learning [21] they present addi-

tional benefits which are discussed in section 2.3.


Disadvantages of Asynchronous E-learning

As suggested by [16], asynchronous e-learning might not be appropriate in

all types of learning leading to various challenges if not appropriately used.

Absence of live interaction in asynchronous e-learning denies learners the

opportunity to ask questions and receive immediate responses to their ques-

tions [16]. Learners only get immediate feedback if other learners or instruc-

tors are logged into the system at the same time they are asking the questions

otherwise they have to wait until they login. Absence of real-time assistance

may delay a learner’s progress if successful completion of other modules is

dependent on the successful completion of the current module. Learners’

self-motivation is very critical in asynchronous e-learning because of the high

level of control they have over their studies. With unlimited flexibility and

less self-motivation, some learners struggle complete the course leading to

lower success rate.

2.3.2 Synchronous E-learning

Synchronous e-learning is the type of e-learning where learners and instruc-

tors participate simultaneously and their interactions happen in real time [23].

It is commonly facilitated by media such as video conferencing, teleconferenc-

ing, online chat programs etc. This type of learning is similar to instructor-

led classroom learning because of the real-time interactions which happen

between instructors and learners and among learners. The advantage of this

type of learning over traditional classroom learning is that it is independent

of the geographical location of the instructor or the learner [1].


Advantages of Synchronous E-learning

Synchronous e-learning defeats the barrier of physical location to have real

time interaction between instructors and students as mentioned above [1].

With proper technologies, learners from different locations and time zones

can interact with each other and with their instructors in real time similar

to what happens in a traditional classroom environment. Real time inter-

actions afford learners an opportunity to get timely feedback from other

learners and instructors on the questions they ask making learning easier for

some. This type of learning is very important for learners who face diffi-

culties understanding course materials without support from instructors or

fellow learners, or learners who struggle with motivation. It also provides

instructors with the liberty of delivering a course from any other location

as long as the required equipment is available. The advantage of this type

of e-learning over asynchronous e-learning is that it eliminates the isolation

experienced by learners in an asynchronous environment due to limited or

no interaction with other leaners or instructors [16].

Disadvantages of Synchronous e-learning

Synchronous e-learning has several disadvantages which mainly borders on

technology. According to [17], synchronous e-learning is heavily reliant on

technology which also determines the quality of the learning. Bandwidth

limitations can compromise the quality of multimedia (video and audio)

content causing unnecessary delays which affects student’s understanding

of course materials. The other disadvantage is that discussions during the

course are not automatically recorded as is the case with asynchronous tex-


tual e-learning denying learners an opportunity to use the recordings for their

revision, unless recording mechanisms are in place to do things like capture

audio and video, or log real-time text chat. Students can only reference the

discussions if they were recorded and posted in a LMS or distributed to them

on other media like CD-ROMs.

2.4 Blended Learning

Blended learning is the mix of delivery methods for teaching and learning

aimed at accommodating the various learning needs of a diverse audience

in a variety of subjects [21]. Some of the delivery methods which can be

blended are instructor-led classroom learning, asynchronous e-learning and

synchronous e-learning.

Advantages of Blended Learning

Blended learning can be more effective than non-blended learning because it

combines the strengths of the delivery methods in the blend [41]. King [21]

suggests that blended learning allows instructors the flexibility of adapting

a delivery method to meet the learning styles of different students. This can

help to re-vitalise subjects that have lost their appeal by building interest in

the students resulting in more effective learning. She however advises that

for blended learning to be effective, the selected delivery methods should be

appropriate to match with the subject matter and the audience.

Blended learning extends the reach of the audience as compared to us-

ing a single method of learning [41]. For example, instructor-led classroom


learning limits access to the course to only those who are physically present

in the classroom. A blend of classroom learning with synchronous e-learning

can accommodate students who cannot afford to be present in class dur-

ing course delivery because of the limitation of their geographical location.

Recording the proceedings of classroom learning and uploading them in a

LMS can further extend the reach to those who are not able to be part of the

course because of their location and time zone, or simply because of clashing

commitments.

2.5 Peer Learning, Peer Tutoring and Peer

Assessment

2.5.1 Peer Learning

Peer learning is the learning which happens among peers through helping

and supporting each other [43]. In academia, it involves a group of students

learning with and from each other [6]. Examples of peer learning groups

include student-led workshops, study groups, assignment and project teams,

class feedback sessions and Internet forums. As indicated by [6], the peer

learning approach may either be established and monitored by a teacher or

students might organize themselves in groups if they view working in groups

to be beneficial. Where teachers are involved in the establishment of the

groups, they do not control the proceedings of the groups even if group

interactions happen in their presence. Teachers intervene only when they

have been requested to do so or when they observe that the discussions are


proceeding in the wrong direction. The minimal intervention of teachers in

the learning process provides an environment where students feel free to put

forward their ideas and practice their communication skills on the subject

being discussed.

Students are encouraged to learn in groups in order to afford them an

opportunity to seek and give help to each other. Students who ask for help

benefit by gaining different perspectives from their fellow learners, and those

who offer help benefit by exploring their own understanding through their

explanations. Even those who just observe benefit from the different kinds

of explanations offered by other students which might assist them in solving

problems they are experiencing [20].

Peer learning is commonly used in university courses where students are

requested to write and submit assignments or to do projects in groups. Group

learning includes students working collaboratively with others, taking col-

lective responsibility for identifying their own learning needs and planning

how these might be addressed, and deepening their understanding of specific

course content [6]. Acceptance of peer learning by students and its ultimate

success is dependent on the organization of the group, the group task, group

membership and how the groups will be held accountable or assessed [4]. Stu-

dents by nature are used to working individually and competing with each

other for grades. Group work, however, requires them to share ideas, take

risks, listen and agree or disagree with others, and generate and reconcile

point of views [4]. It is therefore most likely that students will participate in

group activities if they see sufficient benefits for the time they invest in the

group work. The benefits students look for include higher grades, the help


they obtain from peers and the support and motivation they gain from other

students from the group [20].

2.5.2 Peer Tutoring

Peer tutoring commonly involves advanced students in a class, or those study-

ing in later years, taking limited aspects of a teacher’s instructional role to

teach other students [6]. In peer tutoring, there is a clear and consistent dif-

ferentiation between the teaching and learning role though the teaching role

is done by students. There is a high focus on curriculum content and there

are usually clearly laid down procedures in which participants receive generic

training [43]. In another method of peer tutoring called reciprocal peer tu-

toring, students act as both teachers and learners [15]. This arrangement is

beneficial because it enables students to gain from both the preparation and

instruction of the course in which tutors engage, and from the instruction

that tutees receive.

2.5.3 Peer Assessment

Peer assessment is the process of having the members of a group evaluate and

provide feedback on the extent to which each of their fellow group members

have exhibited specified traits, behaviours, or achievements [19]. Peer assess-

ment can enhance self-assessment and knowledge about when and how to use

particular strategies for learning or for problem solving [43]. Peer assessment

enables students to learn from the feedback they get from other students and

also from reviewing and providing feedback on the work of others.


2.6 Social Networking Sites (SNSs)

According to [9], a social network is a group of individuals who share common

interests. Some of the common interests of individuals in a social network in-

clude the community the individuals live in, their career and social interests,

their common friends and their beliefs. Relationships in a social network can

either be online through a SNS or can be in the offline environment.

A SNS is a “web-based service that allows individuals to create a public

or semi-public profile within a bounded system, form relationships with other

users of the system, and view their connections and the connections of other

users of the system” [7]. SNSs are organized around users and they provide

“a basis for maintaining social relationships, for finding users with similar

interests, and for locating content and knowledge that has been contributed

or endorsed by other users” [28, p.5]. Interactions in SNSs are done through

posting and commenting on messages, pictures and videos on an individual’s

profile or profiles of other users to which an individual is connected; chat-

ting through SNS’s inbuilt programs similar to email and online chat; and

making online voice calls (VoIP). Online social networking emerged and was

popularized with the inception of web 2.0 technologies [50] defined as “more

personalised, communicative form of the World Wide Web that emphasises

active participation, connectivity, collaboration and sharing of knowledge

and ideas among users” [27, p. 665]. Web 2.0 applications include wikis,

blogs, SNSs and photo and video sharing sites.


2.6.1 Social Networking in South Africa and selected

countries

According to the South African Social Media Landscape 2012 report on the

study of the use of social media in South Africa by World Wide Worx and

Fuseware [49], the use of SNSs among rural and urban dwellers and across

different age groups has been increasing. According to the study findings,

by August 2012 there were 5.33 million South Africans who were accessing

Facebook through the Web while 6.8 million people were accessing Facebook

through their mobile phones. The number of South Africans using Twitter,

Mxit and LinkedIn were 2.43 million, 9.35 million and 1.93 million respec-

tively. When the same study was conducted in 2011, it revealed that Twitter

and Facebook had 1.1 million and 4.2 million users respectively; this trans-

lates to a growth rate of around 100, 000 new users per month for both

Twitter and Facebook. Linked in had 1.1 million users in 2011, giving it a

growth rate which is slightly lower than that of Twitter and Facebook.

A similar study was done in the U.S.A. by the Pew Internet and American

Life Project, this time focussing on the usage of SNSs by different age groups.

The results of the study conducted showed that 41% of 12 - 13 year olds and

61% of 14 - 17 year olds use SNSs [34]. The study further showed a universal

use of SNSs among college students at different universities with 91% of the

students belonging to the SNS Facebook.

Another study on the use of Social Media in Australia conducted by Sensis

in conjunction with Australian Interactive Media Industry Association [40]

found that 97% of social networking users used Facebook with an average

user spending more than six hours a week on the site. Other popular SNSs


were LinkedIn with a 16% user base, Twitter with a 14% user base and

Google+ with an 8% user base. The study found that average users logged

in to Facebook 21 times a week, logged in to Twitter 23 times a week and

logged in to Linked in 5 times a week. The top reasons for using social

media was to catch up with friends and family, sharing photos and videos,

and coordinating social events. Females were found to use SNSs more than

males. There were however big variations on the use of SNSs by age group

with 90% of those aged under 30 using SNSs and those aged over 40 using

them less. An investigation on the reasons why some people do not use social

media found that the primary reason was lack of interest with 58% of the

participants stating this as the reason. This was followed by security concerns

(18%), and finding the use of SNSs too time consuming (15%). The least

number of participants (5%) preferred using phone to using a SNS. While

the statistics from the U.S.A. and Australia might not directly apply to the

South African scenario, they give a picture of the use of social networking

among different type of users including the youth and college students which

gives some guidance as to what might be expected in the absence of specific

South African data.

2.6.2 Use of Social Networking in Academia

SNSs are very popular among university students with a large number of

students belonging to at least one SNS [5] [25]. According to [50], SNSs

provide students with an additional channel to express themselves freely, to

establish relationships which might not be possible in offline environment

and to gain access to a wide range of information which assists them in their


learning. They support informal learning where learners acquire new skills

and knowledge from experience and interaction with non-institutional and

non-informal learning spaces [8]. Yu et al. adds that SNSs allow users to

maintain close relationships with a small group of users in addition to estab-

lishing new relationships which expand their networks. A close relationship

with a small group of users is very important for knowledge generation be-

cause it is where most interactions within a social network happen. SNSs

provide a platform where students learn informally “by seeking, exploring

and testing ideas with others within their own social network beyond the

constraints of a classroom” [18, p.243].

A study on the use of SNSs for teaching and learning at the University of

Cape Town (UCT) by [5] found out that students’ use of SNSs is very varied

with students using SNSs mainly for informal social networking, seeking sup-

port from peers, community building on campus, information sharing, and

student activism. Users of SNSs varied and ranged from those who did not

frequently log into and use the SNS on a daily basis; those who frequently

logged in but did not actively participate in the various activities of the

site but only observed the activities of their friends; to those who actively

participated by uploading and downloading information and using the site’s

applications. It is therefore important that before using SNSs for learning,

all the categories of users should be considered with the aim of making all

the users participate as much as possible.

Empirical studies which have been done in the area of social networking

have shown that social networking can have a positive impact on students’

learning outcomes. A study on the pedagogical impact of online social net-


working on university students’ learning by Yu et al. [50] found that online

social networking has a positive impact on students’ personal development

through improvement of their psychological well-being and skills, and their

relationships with peers. In addition, online social networking helps students

to attain social acceptance and adapt to the university culture. Similarly

Madge et al. [25] found that the use of social networking assists students

in their settling process at the university which has a direct impact on their

academic performance. These results indicate the immediate benefits univer-

sities get when they integrate social networking into their courses. Integrating

social networking tools into a LMS at a university can be one of the easiest

means of getting these benefits considering the popularity of SNSs among

university students.

One of the critical issues is the acceptance of students of the inclusion of

social networking tools as part of their learning. Students interviewed dur-

ing a study at UCT by Bosch found it very beneficial being able to check

class-related materials on a SNS while at the same time engaging in personal

communication since they were already spending more time there. The stu-

dents also acknowledged that friends on SNSs helped them to identify and

find learning materials on the Internet, and provided them with a wide range

of information which made their lives on campus easier. SNSs also allowed

junior students to interact with and learn from senior students in the same

field which was not possible in offline environment. Some students however

felt that the use of a SNS for learning can be more of a distraction than a

benefit to the learning process. It is therefore important that before including

social networking as part of students’ learning, all these challenges should be


considered and addressed. As suggested by [20], this could be done by having

a proper implementation plan, with a clear purpose known to students, and

a design and structure that meets the purpose.

2.7 Social Networking Platform Features Sup-

porting Learning

There exist social networking engines that provide social networking features

which are specifically developed to support learning. Some of these features

are:

2.7.1 E-portfolios

A portfolio is a collection of works/artefacts developed across varied con-

texts over time representing an individual, group, organization or institu-

tion [45] [24]. An e-portfolio is therefore a portfolio which is in a digital

format. The collection of digital works can either be online on the web or

on other electronic media such as a CD-ROM or DVD [24]. An e-portfolio

provides students and/or faculty with a way to organize, archive and dis-

play their pieces of work online enabling others including peers to review,

communicate and assess them asynchronously thereby helping them to make

improvements [45]. Lorenzo et al. [24] breaks down e-portfolios into 3 cat-

egories namely student e-portfolios, teaching e-portfolios, and institutional

e-portfolios.


Student e-portfolios

Student e-portfolios are developed and maintained by students. They may

include course assignments, student artefacts in response to assignments,

reviewers feedback to students work [13], drafts of the students work and the

students self-assessment of the work [22]. The artefacts can be in form of

videos, dialogues, simulations, links to references, and interchanges of ideas

in the chat room [13]. E-portfolios can be used to assess students on their

abilities and how they have improved over time [22] and to document their

specific learning outcomes in a course [24]. The accomplishments showcased

in the student e-portfolios may also be shared with prospective employers.

According to [24], one of the advantages of student e-portfolios is that they

help students to become critical thinkers through reflection over the content

and may assist them to develop their writing and multimedia communications

skills [24].

Advantages of E-portfolios

As reported by [24, p.2], e-portfolios can be used to support “student advise-

ment and career preparation; student or alumni credential documentation;

sharing of teaching philosophies and practices; department and program self-

studies; and institutional and program accreditation processes.” E-portfolios

make students’ works to be easily accessible by different people [13]. Stu-

dents can grant others students, instructors or anyone in the world access

to their e-portfolios [13] enabling them to suggest new ideas and provide

feedback on their work. Sharing e-portfolios with instructors allow them

to assess and provide feedback online. Using a shared e-portfolio, students


can collaborate on work with other students or any other professionals in

their field. E-portfolios also allows students to conduct self-evaluation and

to reflect through examination of their works [13]. By reflecting on their

works, students can create a meaningful experience of their work [24] which

can enhance their understanding of their field of study. E-portfolios elimi-

nate storage problems presented by traditional paper-based portfolios [13],

by freeing physical storage space for use by other things.

2.7.2 Blogs

A blog is a web site consisting of a series of entries on various topics arranged

in reverse chronological order which is frequently updated with new informa-

tion [39]. The information on the site can be written by the blog owner,

contributed by others, or can be links to other pages on the Internet. Blogs

can be devoted to one or several subjects or themes. According to Wag-

ner [46], blogs create opportunities for students to receive feedback on their

work. Students can present the results of their research or any of their works

on their blog and invite other students or professionals in their field to visit

and appreciate or provide feedback or comments online on their blog entries.

The feedback provided by others can assist the blog author to improve his or

her works. Since by design the blogging software orders the entries, students

can only focus on the content while the software takes care of the formatting.

Students can also collaborate writing a blog which can lead to quality work

supporting group learning. Tagging the blog allows entries on specific topics

to be located easily by readers


2.7.3 Podcasting

Podcasting is the delivery of audio content to electronic media players on

demand allowing users to listen to the content at the time of their conve-

nience [31]. The audio content can be delivered automatically to electronic

media players if users subscribe to feeds using technologies such as Really

Simple Syndication (RSS) [3] or users can download the content manually.

The delivery of video content in a similar manner is called videocasting [12].

As reported by [35], users who subscribe to their desired (RSS) feed do so

through media aggregator software which automatically download predefined

content to the users’ electronic devices whenever there are new updates on

the site.

Ractham and Zhang [35] suggest that podcasting eases content pub-

lication and subscription relieving users from time-consuming information

searching, updating and downloading [35, p.314]. Academic materials such

as class lectures, assignments, audio or video recording of class sessions can

be uploaded on an instructor’s website, tagged with RSS feeds and automat-

ically distributed to students who subscribed to RSS feeds once an upload or

an update has been made. This removes the need for students to go to the

instructor’s website to check whether content has been updated.

Podcasting also provides an opportunity for students to improve their so-

cial networking and collaboration activities on research work [35]. If students

are collaboratively working on a research project, as is the case in research

commons, podcasting enables them to get immediate updates of what their

colleagues have done on the project through automatic downloads of updates

making communication easier.


2.8 Learning Management Systems

A LMS is a software package that enables the management and delivery of

course content and resources to students [44]. Most LMSs are usually web-

based systems that allow students to access learning materials from anywhere

and at any time [44]. Typically, LMSs allow students to register for a par-

ticular course and they provide facilities for instructors to create and deliver

content, monitor participation of students and assess their performance [38].

Registered students can use LMS’s interactive features such as threaded dis-

cussion forms, video conferencing facilities, and messaging systems. To un-

derstand the functions of a LMS, this paper presents common features which

are present in the Moodle LMS (see section 3.2).

2.9 E-Learning with Peers

The Internet offers an improved means to create, share and distribute knowl-

edge allowing instructors to deliver content to students online [35]. It also

allows students to easily collaborate on academic work online. SNSs and

LMSs are some of the media platforms on the Internet where students can

interact and collaborate on matters which can either be academic or non-

academic. LMSs are designed to be used for academic purposes while SNSs

are currently most popularly used for non-academic purposes. The aim of

LMSs is to ease the management and delivery of course materials rather than

promoting social interaction. Interaction in a LMS is mostly among students

who have enrolled on the same course. On the other hand SNSs are designed

to foster social interaction in virtual environments [34] presenting a greater


opportunity for enhancing student interaction and learning when used for

academic purposes.

Students are used to interacting on SNSs with different people on issues

which are mostly non-academic. A study by [34] on college students’ so-

cial networking experience revealed that 84% of the students used SNSs for

communicating with friends. Specific responses revealed that 50% out of

the total percentage (84%) used SNSs to communicate with friends not on

campus, 17.39% with friends on campus and 13.04% with friends they rarely

saw. The remaining 4.35% did not specify the type of communication. Using

SNSs for learning can therefore present many opportunities because most of

the students are already spending much time on SNSs, are familiar with the

fundamental concepts thereof and enjoy the interaction.

2.10 Conclusion

The use of LMSs at universities and in different organizations is very wide

spread because of the features they provide which simplify the management

and delivery of course content to students. Regardless of their wide use,

their focus is more on the delivery of content than on the learner. LMSs offer

little or no opportunities for learners to interact and collaborate on different

works and to author content which can contribute to the knowledge which

is already available in the systems as provided for in most of the Web 2.0

applications which are the most common applications in use these days.

The inception of Web 2.0 technologies saw the rise in popularity and the

wide usage of SNSs among people of different ages with a large population


of university students being members of one or more SNSs. Their popularity

for use academically is however low as compared to LMSs because they are

more associated with informal social activities which tend to occur in non-

academic circles. Studies have shown that most of the university students

who are members of a SNS use the site for interacting with friends who are

either on campus or outside campus or for obtaining information which does

not directly relate to their studies. SNSs, however, provide features which

promote interaction and collaboration among users which are not available in

most of the LMSs. Using the features available in SNSs for academic purposes

can make learning easy and exciting. The potential power of these features

for learning is what prompted the development of SNSs like Elgg and Mahara

which were built with the purpose of supporting learning. Integrating these

features into LMSs can help universities change the focus of LMSs from

content delivery to learners and learner interactions without the need to

completely rebuild the LMS or for the users to completely change the way

they used the LMS or interact with each other within the system.

Chapter 3

Design

3.1 Introduction

To conduct the study, two open source software applications, a LMS, Moo-

dle and a SNS, Mahara were integrated through a SSO which allowed users

who were authenticated with Moodle to access Mahara through a link on

the Moodle page without needing re-authentication for Mahara. The users

could also move from Mahara to Moodle without any requirement for re-

authentication. The original project plan was to integrate Moodle as a LMS

and Elgg as a SNS. Moodle was selected because of the rich features which

it provides for the management of the e-learning process and also because it

is used by Rhodes University to manage the delivery of courses and course

contents to students complementing their classroom learning. Elgg was se-

lected because of the rich social networking features the software provides

for learning and also because there existed an Elgg integration block which

would simplify the integration process using any version of Moodle prior to

31

CHAPTER 3. DESIGN 32

version 1.9 and any version of Elgg prior to version 0.9. However, the original

plan changed because of the problems which arose, and which are discussed

in section 3.4 below.

3.2 The Moodle LMS

Moodle is an Open Source LMS developed to assist educators to manage

online learning. In Moodle, users are separated by the roles they are assigned

in the system [29]. A role defines what a user is allowed to do within a system.

The following roles are defined for the users of the Moodle:

1. Site administrator: Users in this category have permissions to per-

form any function within the system.

2. Manager: The manager role is similar to the administrator role but

the difference is that the rights of a Manager can be edited while that

of the administrator cannot be edited.

3. Course creator: Users in this category have rights to create new

courses within the system.

4. Teacher: Teachers can do anything within a course, including changing

the activities and grading students.

5. Student: A user with a student role can participate in the course

activities.

In addition to defining user roles, Moodle provides the following functions:


1. Courses - Courses are spaces in Moodle where teachers add learning

materials for their students. Courses can be created by administrators,

course creators and managers. Teachers can then add content and

reorganise courses according to their own needs.

2. Activities - An activity refers to what a student can do to interact

with other students or a teacher. Standard Moodle provides fourteen

different types of activities some of which are explained below:

• Assignments - This module allows students to upload assign-

ments and teachers to review them and provide feedback including

grades.

• Chat - Chat allows course participants to have real-time syn-

chronous discussion in a course module.

• Forums - Forums allow students and teachers to exchange ideas

by commenting on posts. Forums are used for asynchronous dis-

cussion on a particular topic.

• Workshops - Workshops are peer assessment modules that allow

students to submit their assignments and be able to assess assign-

ments of their peers. Course participants get two grades which

include the grade of the work they submitted and the grade of

how well they assessed their peers.


3.3 The Elgg SNS

Elgg is an open source social networking engine that provides a robust frame-

work on which to build all kinds of social environments [11]. As reported by

O’Hear [33], and the founders of Elgg, Werdmuller and Tosh [48], the net-

working engine was specifically developed to support learning with a focus

on learner interactions. The engine provides an informal space for learners

to exercise their thoughts through “personal web publishing”, to reflect, to

connect with others, to create adhoc communities around similar interests in

the online space, and to be able to share different types of files. It also allows

the users to create their own personal network and tag their content with

keywords in order to connect with other users with similar interests. Another

useful feature is the option to create access controls over the content users

create which determine the control other users have over the content. Access

controls can range from fully public, enabling all the users of the system to

comment on the content to only readable by a particular group or individ-

ual. Some of the useful features for learning offered by Elgg include blogging,

podcasting, creating online profiles and an RSS reader. Elgg combines el-

ements of blogging, e-portfolios, and social networking to create a personal

landscape for learners [48]. A Personal Landscape/Learning Environment is

an environment that provides learners with their own spaces to develop and

share ideas which is under their control [2].


3.4 The Original Project Plan and Problems

Faced

The original project plan was to integrate RUconnected and the latest version

of Elgg. To do the implementation, the following activities were planned:

1. Install the previous versions of Moodle (version 1.8) and Elgg (version

0.8) which worked with the Elgg integration block;

2. Integrate the two systems using the Elgg integration block;

3. Conduct an investigation of how the Elgg integration block integrated

these two applications;

4. Update the Elgg integration block based on the findings of the inves-

tigations in step 3 above to work with the latest version of Elgg and

version 1.9 of Moodle. Moodle version 1.9 was selected to enable the

integration of Elgg with RUconnected; and

5. Implement the integration of Elgg and RUConnected.

Task 1 was successfully implemented while Task 2 was partially implemented.

The other tasks were not implemented at all because of some challenges which

were faced during the implementation. In Task 2, the Elgg integration block

was implemented to work with version 1.9 of Moodle. The integration of

Moodle with Elgg was not carried out because the instructions to implement

the integration are no longer available online. The original author, Penny

Leach, was contacted but she responded that she could not assist with the

instructions because she last worked on them in 2005 and did not have a copy


which she could share. She further explained that she had left the project

implementing Moodle/Elgg integration the same year she developed the in-

structions and has never been involved in the project since then. Enquiries

on the Moodle/Elgg integration online forum requesting the members’ assis-

tance, and direct emails to members who actively participated on the forums

and worked on the project, all failed to yield useful results.

Research on the Moodle forums [29] as to why Moodle/Elgg integration is

no longer being developed and supported yielded the following information:

1. Elgg had a major rebuild when version 1.0 was released which did not

take into consideration the integration with Moodle which in turn broke

most of the plugins;

2. The developers of the Elgg integration block disagreed with many tech-

nical decisions the main Elgg developers were making which made the

Elgg integration block project unsustainable.

For the reasons mentioned above, the developers of the Elgg integration block

moved on to develop the Mahara system.

3.5 A Solution to the Problem

In order to avoid delays to the project, a decision was made to replace Elgg

with Mahara as the Social Network platform of choice for the research. Ma-

hara is a system combining e-portfolio and social networking features as

described in detail below. Like Elgg, Mahara is also open source software.


3.6 The Mahara SNS

According to [26], Mahara is a system that combines features of an e-portfolio,

(that allows students to record evidence of lifelong learning) and features of

social networking system that allows students to maintain and interact with

a list of their friends within the system and create their own online commu-

nities. Mahara gives users control over which items and what information

(artefacts) within their portfolio other users can see. To grant other users

access to artefacts, owners of the artefacts bundle them up and place them in

one area in what is called a View/Page. A user can have as many Views as

he/she likes each containing a different collection of artefacts, and intended

purpose and audience. Access to a view can be granted to a user as an in-

dividual or as a member of a group or community. E-portfolio owners can

create Views with the following characteristics [26]:

1. e-portfolio owners can receive public or private feedback on their View

and artefacts within that View.

2. Users accessing a View can report any objectionable material directly

to the Site Administrator.

3. Users can add Views and artefacts within a View to their Watchlist

and receive automated notifications of any changes or updates.

4. e-portfolio owners can submit a View for Assessment by a tutor or

teacher allowing for a snapshot of the View and associated artefacts on

a certain date.

Other features of the system include the following [26]:


1. File Repository - The File repository allows users to create folder

and subfolder structures and upload multiple files.

2. Blogs - Mahara allows users to create blogs and configure them on

whether or not comments may be received on the blog. Blogs and blog

postings are considered artefacts and may be added to a View.

3. Social Networking - Mahara provides social networking features that

allow users to create and maintain a list of friends within the system.

Users can choose whether other users can add them to their friends list

automatically or by request and approval.

4. Resume Builder - Resume builder in Mahara allows users to cre-

ate a digital CV containing contact and personal information, employ-

ment and educational history, certifications, accreditations and awards,

books and publications, professional membership, personal, academic

work and work skills, and personal, academic and career goals.

5. Profile Information - Mahara allows users to share details through

a variety of optional profile information fields including student ID,

introductions, profile photos, Skype, MSN, Yahoo user IDs and postal

address and contact phone numbers.

6. Interface with Moodle - Mahara provides a SSO capability that

allows users, at the option of the administrator, to be automatically

logged on to both their Mahara and Moodle accounts by providing a

username and password at only one of these sites. The user can sign

on at Mahara, and click on a link to her Moodle account, or sign on at


Moodle, and click on a link to her Mahara account.

As discussed on the Moodle forums [29], some of the advantages of using

Mahara to integrate with Moodle over using Elgg for the same purpose are

as follows:

1. Mahara and Moodle have similar plugin systems and a lot of underlying

similarities in libraries;

2. Mahara was designed from the beginning to interface cleanly with Moo-

dle;

3. Mahara has a tighter integration with Moodle through a SSO; and

4. Features of Mahara overlap with features of Elgg, and extend these

The replacement of Elgg with Mahara therefore did not affect the results of

the research since the features of Elgg were replicated in Mahara. Switch-

ing to Mahara also enabled the author to interact with developers of Ma-

hara/Moodle integration since the project was active.

3.7 The Integration of Moodle and Mahara

According to [8], there are two ways a LMS can be integrated with a SNS.

The two ways are:

1. Extending a LMS through the inclusion of interfaces to allow integra-

tion with other systems which provide features for informal learning;

and


2. Integrating features that allow informal learning directly in the LMS.

Both these approaches have advantages and disadvantages. To integrate

Moodle and Mahara, we used the first approach mentioned above. The inte-

grated system allowed users logged in to Moodle to access Mahara without

being authenticated again through a SSO. The disadvantage of this approach

is that it is only based on the exchange of information which is only in one

direction. The exchange of information of the integrated system is only from

Moodle to Mahara and not vice versa. The approach was however appropri-

ate for our research approach because of the time limitations.

3.8 How the students Used the Integrated

System

Students who registered for the CS1L2 course used the integrated system for

5 weeks. The class had a peer tutoring system similar to that suggested by

Boud [6] where students from senior Computer Science classes were assisting

the students during the practicals. All the practical assignments which were

done during the 5 week period were uploaded and organised on a page the

students created in Mahara. The page was shared with their tutors for

marking and also for them to provide feedback directly on the page. The

students were added to groups which were created in the system according

to their normal tutorial groups. The aim of assigning them to groups was

to enable them interact with other students (within their groups) and their

tutors. All the users of the system had rights to create additional groups

within the system as they wished.


To login to the integrated system, the users were using different login cre-

dentials to those they used to access the Moodle-based LMS used by Rhodes

University. This created challenges because most of the students confused

the credentials they used to login to RUconnected with those required to

login to the integrated system. The other challenge was the accessibility of

the system which was initially possible from the campus network only. This

reduced the system usability because only students who were resident on the

university campus were able to access the system after teaching hours. This

was however taken care of after seeking permission from the ICT department

to make the system accessible from outside the university campus.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

Clearance was obtained from the research ethics committee before the study

commenced, as per the requirement to obtain clearance prior to conducting

the study for all studies where human beings are subjects. An “Ethical

Standards: Research Protocol” form was completed and submitted to the

research ethics committee together with the consent form, the questionnaire,

and the debriefing form for approval of the research.

Completion of the questionnaire was voluntary and the students were free

to withdraw at any stage if they felt uncomfortable providing the information

requested. To ensure that the students are aware of this, all the information

was provided at the start of the questionnaire. The information included

the aims and objectives of the research and the assurance of the privacy of

the students at any other stage of the research. The students were assured


that any information they provided during the study would be used solely

for the purpose of the study and that no student would be identified with

the information they provided. Participants were required to respond to a

mandatory question where they confirmed that they were informed and their

participation was voluntary.

3.10 Conclusion

Despite initial setbacks in the design process caused by the state of the Elgg

project, Mahara was found to be not only a suitable replacement but a better

option, allowing simpler integration with greater benefits.

Chapter 4

Implementation and Results

4.1 Introduction

As indicated in section 3.4, the original project implementation plan was

to integrate a SNS with the Moodle-based LMS (RUconnected) used by

Rhodes University. The implementation, however, did not go as planned

because at the time of the project implementation, there was no-one as-

signed to maintain the Moodle software on which RUconnected was running.

For this reason, we ran a test server designed to emulate the university’s

Moodle server. We sourced Moodle version 1.9 and modified it to look sim-

ilar to RUconnected by implementing the theme used by RUconnected and

installing additional plugins which were installed in RUconnected. To dif-

ferentiate between the Moodle-based LMS used by Rhodes University and

the Moodle-based LMS used in the study, the Moodle-based LMS used by

Rhodes University will be referred to as “RUconnected” while that used in

the study will be referred to as “test RUconnected”

43

CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS 44

4.2 Implementation Environment

The integrated system was installed on a virtual machine which was hosted at

the data centre in the Department of Computer Science of Rhodes University.

The operating system environment was Ubuntu Linux version 11.10 and both

Mahara and Moodle used MySQL version 5.5.24 as the database engine.

4.3 Implementation of the SSO

The test RUconnected and Mahara were installed in the host environment

before the integration was done. The following steps were followed to inte-

grate the two systems:

1. Enabled network settings on the test RUconnected, a process which

created a public encryption key to communicate with Mahara. A simi-

lar process (which also created a public encryption key) was carried out

on Mahara for it to be able to communicate with test RUconnected;

2. Created an institution in Mahara to be used to communicate with the

test RUconnected;

3. Installed an authentication plugin (XMLRPC) in Mahara for the insti-

tution which was created;

4. Configured the authentication plugin with the details of where the test

RUconnected was installed, which included the details of the root di-

rectory of the test RUconnected, the listening port, and the direction


of SSO (which was from Moodle to Mahara). Other configuration in-

formation included the requirement to auto-create users roaming from

the test RUconnected to Mahara on first access, and the importation

of profile and the login information from test RUconnected to Mahara;

5. Mahara was added as a peer in test RUconnected, and Moodle fetched

the public encryption key which was created on Mahara based on the

peer configuration information;

6. Configured two services (SSO(Identity Provider) and SSO(Service Provider))

on test RUconnected. The SSO(Identity Provider) was published as a

service to allow users to roam from test RUconnected to Mahara. By

doing this, Moodle publishes a service to Mahara which identifies the

users roaming to Mahara. The SSO(Service Provider) was activated as

a subscriber service to allow users to subscribe to the test RUconnected

services;

7. Enabled the Moodle Network Authentication plugin on test RUcon-

nected and configured it with additional information of the host envi-

ronment for Mahara;

8. Activated the function to enable the users to roam to Mahara which

completed the integration process; and

9. Finally, a link was added to test RUconnected homepage to take the

users to Mahara.

On first access to Mahara through the link provided on test RUconnected,

the user details including profile information were imported from test RU-


connected to Mahara.

4.4 Development of the Questionnaire

To assess the education impact of integrating a LMS and a SNS, the research

was designed to gather and asses the opinions of students on their experience

using the integrated system. A survey approach using a questionnaire was

used to collect study data. After the first draft questionnaire was developed,

Mrs. Ingrid Sieborger was asked to help to review the questionnaire and pro-

vide suggestions for improvement. Mrs. Sieborger was engaged because of her

experience in questionnaire-based research. The questionnaire had four sec-

tions which were used to collect 1) the respondents demographic information

which included their age, gender, degree they registered for and their year of

study, 2) their use of RUconnected, 3) their use and familiarity of SNSs, and

4) their experience using the integrated Mahara and RUconnected. In order

to reduce the time taken to complete the questionnaire and to simplify the

process of completing the questionnaire, most of the questions required the

participants to select answers that applied, rank the answers based on their

importance with few open-ended questions to collect information which the

questionnaire did not include but applied to the participants. Likert scale

type of questions were limited to 4 choices in order to discourage the respon-

dents from selecting the middle choice which in most cases is neutral. The

likert scale questions of the questionnaire module of Moodle which was used

to develop the questionnaire is designed to use a 1 to 5 scale which led to

responses being rated with decimal points. To improve the visibility of the


questionnaire, it was accessible through the main test RUconnected page and

also on the page the students accessed course materials.

4.5 Data Gathering

The questionnaire was distributed to applicants using the questionnaire mod-

ule in test RUconnected, and the students were requested to complete it,

although they could opt out of participating if they wished to do so. In

addition to the online questionnaire, the tutors were requested to give their

opinions on the use of the integrated system, by email. The questionnaire

which was used to collect data for the research was run from 24th September,

2012 to 4th October 2012 to allow the participants to have ample time to

make a decision on their participation since completion of the questionnaire

was voluntary.

Out of the 207 students who registered for the CS1L2 course, 63 stu-

dents completed the questionnaire. Out of the 14 tutors for the course, 7

tutors responded to the email mentioned earlier requesting feedback on their

experience of using the integrated system. The results of the survey are dis-

cussed in detail below and the discussion is based on the major sections of

the questionnaire and the objectives of the research.

4.6 Data analysis

The questionnaire module in Moodle groups related questionnaire data to-

gether and produces graphical representations of the data. The plotted


graphs were used to analyse the data collected using the online question-

naire.

4.7 Respondents’ Demographic Information

The majority of the participants (60%) were female and the remaining par-

ticipants (40%) were male (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Respondents’ distribution by gender

The largest group of the participants (98%) were in the age range of 18 -

24 years and the remainder (2%) was in the age range of 25 - 29 years (Figure

4.2).

Figure 4.2: Respondents’ distribution by age

The majority of the participants (61%) were pursuing a Bachelor of Phar-

macy degree. The other participants were pursuing Bachelor of Law degree

(5%), Bachelor of Arts, Humanities degree (8%), Bachelor of Science degree


(6%), Bachelor of Commerce degree (2%) and the remainder (2%) did not

specify the course (Table 4.1).

Course Number of Students

Bachelor of Pharmacy 41

Bachelor of Law 3

Bachelor of Arts, Humanities 5

Bachelor of Science 4

Bachelor of Commerce 1

Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents according to courses

As can be seen in figure below (Figure 4.3), the majority (73%) of the

participants were first year students. The other participants were in second

year (16%), third year (2%) and fourth year (6%).

Figure 4.3: Respondents’ distribution by year of study

4.8 Use of RUconnected

The study collected information on how the students used the RUconnected

LMS before they started using the integrated system so as to have a basis


for comparison of their behaviour using the integrated system. A total of

59 students responded that they had used or were using RUconnected in the

courses for which they were registered. The remaining 4 students did not

respond to this question. As can be seen in the figure below (Figure 4.4),

the students used RUconnected mainly to access course materials which had

a rating of 3.8, and to submit assignments which had a rating of 2.9. The

students rarely used the system to interact with other students or staff on

non-academic work, both of which had a rating of 1.3. The students seldom

used RUconnected to interact with peers on academic work and academic

staff on academic work, collaborate with peers on academic work and assess

work of their peers.

Figure 4.4: Students’ use of RUconnected

As can be seen in the figure below (Figure 4.5), the majority of the stu-

dents (97%) found the features for downloading of course materials to be


the most useful in RUconnected. The other useful features were for submit-

ting assignments online with 62% of the students mentioning this feature as

being useful and for accessing online news and announcements with 52% of

the students mentioning this as being useful. The least useful features were

for instant messaging (5% of the students indicated this), discussion forums

(8% of the students indicated this), online calendars (21% of the students

indicated this) and online quizzes (14% of the students indicated this).

Figure 4.5: Students’ perspectives of the useful features of RUconnected

The students found RUconnected to be very effective for accessing course

materials (rating of 3.7) and for obtaining help from their lecturers (rating of

2.8). They found the system partially effective for giving to or obtaining help

from peers on academic work and as a platform for interacting with peers on

non-academic matters (Figure 4.6).


Figure 4.6: Effectiveness of RUconnected

4.9 Use of and Familiarity with SNSs

The study also collected information about the students’ existing behaviours

using a SNS service - their familiarity with SNSs and the reasons they used

SNSs - so as to have a basis for comparison with their use of Mahara. Face-

book was the most popular SNS among the students with 97% of the students

responding that they were using the site or have used the site in the past.

The second most popular SNS was Twitter (53%) followed by Google+ (51%)

(Figure 4.7). There was one participant who indicated not belonging to any

SNS. There was no participant who indicated having used or using Orkut

or Bebo SNSs even though there were on the list of SNSs the students were

given to select from. Most of the participants, who listed using other SNSs

which were not on the list provided, indicated using Skype, Whatsapp and

Mxit indicating a high interaction among the students using instant chat

programs.

The students used SNSs mainly to connect with family and friends with

97% of the students indicating this as their reason for using SNSs (Figure


Figure 4.7: List of SNSs the students use or have ever used

4.8). The other uses were information and news gathering (52%), sharing

media (51%), making new friendships (48%) and accessing entertainment

(41%). The least used functions were blogging (10%), searching for jobs

(8%) and interacting with brands (10%). The students rarely used the SNSs

for non-formal educational purposes with only 30% of the participants using

SNSs to access educational materials and 25% of the participants using SNSs

to conduct research.

Instant messaging is the most popular feature in SNSs among the students

with 83% of the respondents indicating this feature to be the most useful.

This was followed by asynchronous messaging similar to email (68%), image

uploading (65%), photo sharing (62%), friendship management (accepting


Figure 4.8: Students’ use of SNSs

and denying friendship requests) (54%) and social networking groups (46%).

The features considered least useful among the students are blogging (9%)

and forums (8%) ( Figure 4.9).

4.10 The Impact of Integrating Moodle and

Mahara

4.10.1 Perceived Usefulness of the Features of Mahara

The participants did not respond finding the features of Mahara (including

the features they used as part of the CS1L2 course and those they might have

used at their own initiative) particularly useful for their learning. These fea-


Figure 4.9: Students’ perspective of the useful features of SNSs

tures they were requested to rate were the file repository (which they used

to upload, store and download files during the course), the journal (which

is used for blogging, but they were not requested to use during the course),

social networking (which they used to make friendships and groups and com-

municate both synchronously and asynchronously with other participants),

and creation of an online profile (that could identify them in both Mahara

and Moodle) (Figure 4.10).


Figure 4.10: Rating of the usefulness of the features of Mahara

There was an equal split on the perceived usefulness of the features of

Mahara in terms of helping students to organise their work from the feed-

back provided by the tutors. Half (three tutors) responded that they found

Mahara to be useful for organising the work of the students while the other

half (three tutors) responded finding it to be complicated and therefore not

useful for organising the work of the students. The remaining tutor did not

give his opinion. Those that found Mahara to be useful cited the ability to

comment directly on the work of the students and the use of tags which made

it easier to search for specific work as some of the most useful features. The

tutors who disagreed felt that the system was too complicated to be used

for just organising the students’ work and integrating Mahara with test RU-

connected was unnecessary because RUconected provided all the necessary

functions.


4.10.2 Perceived Impact of Using the Integrated Sys-

tem for Learning

The students found integrating the test RUconnected with Mahara to have

few direct educational benefits (Figure 4.12) and to have minimal impact in

establishing new connections or relationships with other students, strength-

ening existing relationships with other students, improving access to a wide

variety of information, simplifying the process of obtaining help from fellow

students, simplifying the collaboration of students on academic work, or sim-

plifying the process of obtaining and providing feedback to other students on

academic work (Figure 4.11). This is despite the students having created

friendships and collaborated on one of the practical assignments. Almost all

the students had friends in the system with some having over twenty friends

on their list of friends. A close look at the different friendships which existed

in the system shows the likelihood of the students replicating the friendships

they had either through other SNSs or offline. Most of the students had

friends from the same year of study and few students had friends who were

in a different year of study.

Most of the content the students created in the system were their profiles

and the work they uploaded after completing their practicals. The practical

assignments were shared with their tutors for marking and feedback and

they were not accessible to other students. The students did not create, at

their own initiative, pages containing work which they could have shared

with other students for comments and feedback. There were however some

students who communicated through writing on the walls of their friends

asking each other about the progress they were making on their practical


Figure 4.11: Students’ perspective of the impact of using integrated RUcon-

nected and Mahara

assignments, but many received no responses, preventing conversation and

ensuing peer learning from taking off. The same problem of lack of willingness

by other students to use Mahara in the same way they used other SNSs might

have demotivated the students who were keen.

4.10.3 Perceived Usability of the Integrated System

The results of the study show that both the tutors and students found the

user interface of Mahara problematic. According to the feedback obtained

from the tutors, the students complained of the many steps they were re-

quired to perform to complete a particular task. For example, to share their

work with a tutor, the students created a page, uploaded their files to the

system, dragged and dropped the files to the page they had created and fi-

nally they had to find their tutor on the system and then share their files


with the tutor. In the subsequent practicals, the students were not required

to do all these steps but just add their new work to the page they had al-

ready created and shared with their tutors. The aim was to help the students

to organise all their practical work in one page to which they could easily

refer. However, some students were creating a new page for every practical

assignment which made the task of submitting their assignments each time

through Mahara significantly more complicated than doing the same in RU-

connected. In RUconnected, the students performed only one step to submit

their work which was to upload their files to the system. The complication

of Mahara might have discouraged the students from logging in frequently to

Mahara with the same frequency they logged in to other SNSs (Figure 4.12).

The feedback provided by the tutors on the usability of the integrated

system from their perspective echoes the responses of the students that Ma-

hara is not user friendly even though some tutors did not directly mention

this. Only three out of seven tutors provided feedback on the usability of the

integrated system from their point of view. The other tutors responded to

the question but their answers were from the point of view of the students.

The first tutor responded that the system was easy to use since they were

experienced in the use of such systems. The second tutor responded that the

system seemed easy to use but did not elaborate. The third tutor mentioned

that the system was difficult to use. Among the challenges the tutors faced

were moving between students’ submissions for a particular practical submis-

sion which made marking of students’ work difficult. They also mentioned

the lack of spell-check facility, the absence of the option to select a student

grade which tutors were familiar with in RUconnected and missed in Mahara,


and the difficulty to correlate the feedback to a particular student’s work on

a page which contains more than one work for a particular student. The

tutors were however of the opinion that the interface for providing feedback

to the work of the students in Mahara was easy despite these limitations.

Most of the tutors complained on the use of aliases as display names

by most students, in the same way they did in other social networks which

caused problems for the tutors when marking their work. The tutors had

problems identifying the students from their aliases. They therefore proposed

removing this flexibility to avoid these problems. When creating a profile in

Mahara, users input their first name, last name, display name (optional) and

an introduction (optional). If a user has a display name, the real name is

not visible to regular Mahara users except administrators who are able to

see both the real name and display name.

The tutors were of the opinion that the integrated system should have

been tested with students who had never used RUconnected before, suggest-

ing that the experience the students had of using RUconnected affected the

way they used the integrated system. They observed that there was reluc-

tance by some students to switch to using the integrated system. The stu-

dents felt that RUconnected managed by Rhodes University met their needs

and it was not necessary to use a separate system to do similar work. Stu-

dents displayed little understanding of the benefits of using social networking

for peer learning and some made comments to the tutors and lecturers that

indicated some resistance to the very idea of social networking in a formal

educational space. For example, one of the students sent a message to a

tutor which read “This is my work for the 2nd excel practical. By the way


I think this social networking thing is going too far. Why can’t we hand in

our work through the normal RUconnected ...” when submitting the second

assignment. The tutors also complained of lack of training for them. They

believed that if they were trained more extensively on how to use the system,

they would have assisted the students better which would have led to more

favourable responses. The tutors also believed that testing the integrated

system with the Computer Science literary class was not a good idea be-

cause of the level of computer skills of the students in the class. They felt

that it would have been better if it was tested with the Computer Science

(CS102/102) first year students who would have learned how to use the sys-

tem faster. This however would not have been representative of the average

students of the University.

4.10.4 Perceived Appropriateness of using Social Net-

working as a Pedagogical Tool

The results of the study show that the students were not ready to adopt

social networking using an unfamiliar SNS as part of their studies. This can

be seen from the students’ responses where they indicated that they are more

interested in using familiar SNSs like Facebook and Twitter, although there

is no data indicating whether they would be happy using these as part of

formal educational courses. A similar recommendation was made by one of

the tutors who suggested that using a familiar SNS would have made the

students easily accept the use of social network as part of their studies.

There were mixed comments among the tutors on the use of social net-

working as part of studies with some for it and others against it. Some of


those who were for using social networking indicated that Mahara made it

easy for them to interact with the students. They were able to interact with

students both as individuals and as a group. They however indicated that

social networking would have been educationally beneficial if the social net-

working features were included as part of RUconnected rather than being

integrated through a separate system possibly due to students already be-

ing familiar with and having committed to using RUconnected for academic

purposes. Some of those who were against using social networking as part of

studies felt that it promotes laziness among the students. One tutor men-

tioned that the students’ interactions encouraged them to give each other

answers and did not encourage them to think on their own and understand

how to solve problems which would affect them during examinations where

interactions are not allowed. Some felt that RUconnected is robust enough to

support student learning and integrating with a SNS just make things com-

plicated. They did not seem to see many potential benefits offered by making

e-peer-learning possible, and their opinions were very possibly coloured by

the students feelings and use of Mahara, and the fact that they did not

experience much benefit from it.


Figure 4.12: Rating of the usefulness and the impact of using the RUcon-

nected integrated with Mahara

Chapter 5

Discussion

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings which were presented in the previous

chapter. The discussions will form the basis for a conclusion which is made

in the next chapter. The discussions are based on the direct responses of

the participants, the pattern observed in the responses, and the observations

which were made during the study.

5.2 Use of RUconnected

The students used RUconnected mainly as a repository for course materials

rather than as a platform for interactive and informal learning. Figure 4.4

shows this pattern where students responded using RUconnected mainly to

access course materials and that they rarely use it to interact with peers on

both academic and non-academic work and to collaborate on academic work.

64

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 65

This usage of RUconnected is also confirmed by the pattern of responses in

Figure 4.6 where the students indicated finding the system to be very effective

for obtaining learning materials and partially effective for giving or obtaining

help from peers on academic work and as a platform for interaction with peers

for non-academic purposes. Little or no difference to students’ learning would

have been experienced if no LMS was in place and the learning materials were

distributed as hard copies or as soft copies on external data storage devices,

except for potentially making these resources harder to access and easier to

lose. The reason the students responded finding the system to be effective

for obtaining help from lecturers (Figure 4.6) might have been because of the

feedback the students receive on their assignments.

As discussed in section 2.5.2, user interactions are high in SNSs because

they allow the users to establish close relationships with a small group of

other users in addition to allowing them to establish new relationships which

expand their networks [50]. In RUconnected, there are no features similar

to those in SNSs that allow users to create online communities with similar

interests. Students are only grouped together in the system via being enrolled

for the same courses and they do not have rights to create custom groups.

The use of RUconnected mainly as a repository for course materials backs

up anecdotal evidence suggesting that students log in to the system most

frequently when new assignments or course materials were uploaded in the

system, when they were submitting their assignments for marking, and before

exams and tests. The students did not, on their own, use the system either

as a tool to assist them in their learning in a regular manner or to collaborate

and share knowledge.


The low rating in terms of importance of the features for instant mes-

saging and discussion forums (Figure 4.5) which were designed to promote

student interaction in RUconnected may have been due to the same reason

that the students rarely use them or do not use them at all. It might also be

because the students have used them but did not find their implementation

user-friendly. RUconnected has potential to be used as a platform for stu-

dents’ interactions although to a lesser extent than a SNS like Mahara, but

the system does not appear to be used as such leading to the students failing

to appreciate the usefulness of these features. While features like workshops

(which allow peer assessment) are available in RUconnected, based on the

feedback given by the students, they do not seem to be required to use these

features by staff making the students fail to appreciate the usefulness of the

system for peer learning. This was as suspected and it was hoped that the in-

troduction of a SNS component (which the students are already familiar with

in other SNSs) to their learning environment would change the situation.

The features of RUconnected designed to support learner interactions are

limited, confirming the theory that LMSs are mainly designed to support

the creation and distribution of content to students with little or no support

for student interactions and their active participation in the studies [8]. It

is possible that the lack of interaction on both academic and non-academic

matters among the students and between staff and students in LMSs, using

the limited features available, is either due to the LMSs not providing a good

platform for interactive and informal learning, or the university staff rarely

using the system to promote interactions between students and between staff

and students. For a LMS to be used for both formal and informal learning,


students need to be encouraged and given proper guidance in how it works.

5.3 Familiarity with and Use of SNSs

Students like to interact with others as evidenced by the high response on the

use of SNSs to connect and interact with friends and family. Except for one

participant who indicated not using any SNS, all the participants used at least

one SNS. The popularity of SNSs among the students made the use of social

networking in education a promising option for promoting student learning

through interaction, particularly if they were included as part of a LMS. This

was suggested by previous studies and was part of the motivation for testing

Mahara with the students at the University. As discussed in section 5.2, the

students are not using social networking features in the RUconnected LMS

naturally and might therefore need guidance and encouragement for them to

start using the features for interactive learning. Another option is to extend

the SNS with additional social networking features, similar to those in the

SNSs they already use to encourage interactions which was what was done

in the study. The students’ responses (Figure 4.8) also show that they were

using SNSs as a platform for informal learning as shown by the number of

responses on the use of SNSs for information and news gathering. However,

the use of SNSs as a platform for non-formal learning is very low as shown by

the responses on the use of SNSs to access education materials and to conduct

research. The trend in Figure 4.8 could suggest that students perceive SNSs

as a platform for informal interaction and informal learning rather than for

formal educational purposes.


The students’ preferences for features in SNSs correspond with their re-

sponses on what they use SNSs for. Students mostly use SNSs to connect

with family and friends and this is done mainly through instant messaging

or sending each other asynchronous messages. The high preference for the

features that enable students to upload images to SNSs also relates to high

use of SNSs by students to share media files. The low preference for blogs

and forums relates to the low use of SNSs to write blogs and as a discussion

forum. It is possible that the low usage of forums in SNSs may have led to

low usage of the forums in RUconnected. However, the popularity of mes-

saging systems in SNSs does not match with the low popularity of the same

features in RUconnected, which is significant, and could indicate that they

find the implementation of the messaging system in RUconnected to be poor

or difficult to use, or that they use other systems for messaging.

The low rating of the features of Mahara (Figure 4.10) contrasts with

the rating of similar features in the other SNSs the students use informally.

Except for blogging which the students reported either not using or rarely

using in the other SNSs, the students found the features on other SNSs which

are similar to those in Mahara to be very useful. For example, Mahara has

features which the students used to interact with peers and tutors and to

upload images and files which are similar to those they use to interact with

family and friends and to upload images in the other SNSs. It is possible that

this perception of the social features of Mahara might have been influenced

by how the students used the social features in RUconnected, and their un-

derstanding of the tool was something for formal learning rather than for use

for informal purposes.


The limited usage of forums and messaging features in RUconnected by

the students could have been for three reasons which are 1) they had tried

these features and found they did not work well/were not user friendly, 2)

they tried peer interaction over these features and found it to offer no sig-

nificant positive contribution to learning, 3) they did not appreciate the

usefulness of these features for formal learning, given their usual experience

of using these sorts of features informally. The first option was addressed to

some extent by trying an alternative software platform offering the limited

social networking features offered by RUconnected as well as various oth-

ers offered by Mahara. The second option is possible to address but would

contradict a number of studies on the benefits of peer learning as suggested

by [6]. The third seems as likely if not more likely a possibility than the

first, given participants feedback about their usage of RUconnected for other

courses.

5.4 Use of the Integrated System

The integration of the test RUconnected and Mahara did not make the stu-

dents log in frequently to the integrated system in the same way they log in

to other SNSs (Figure 4.12). According to the results of the study by Sen-

sis in conjunction with Australian Interactive Media Industry Association,

users log in to SNSs up to an average of twenty three times a week which

translates to an average of three times per day [40]. It is possible that the

frequency the students logged in to the integrated system was lower than the

frequency the students logged into RUconnected because the students were


still using RUconnected for other courses and having two separate systems

used for similar purposes made them use RUconnected more because they

were already familiar with it. The absence of news and advertisements in

the test RUconnected probably played a role on the failure to attract the

students to use the system. Since the integrated system only hosted course

materials for CS1L2 course, the students would have seen less of a reason to

log in and use the integrated system regularly. One of the indicators of the

low login frequency was that many students requested a reset of their pass-

word just before each practical or when new course materials were uploaded

on the system, showing they had not logged in for a while and had forgotten

it.

It is also possible that the students used the features of Mahara because

they were requested to use it as part of CS1L2 course and did not use them

on their own or explore other features of the system to appreciate the impact

they could have on their learning. This could account for the friendships the

students made within the system not having much impact on their relation-

ships and them not taking advantage of Mahara-based relationships to solicit

from or provide help to other students as it is expected in peer learning. They

either did not do this at all, or used other more familiar channels. This could

be related to the learning culture at Rhodes University, where students did

not report using even the existing LMS software for peer learning activi-

ties, which indicates a lack of use of these features in teaching and learning

by staff. Neither the students nor staff seem to have done what Boud [6]

suggests is necessary, which is to establish peer learning as something that

students do and see value in. There were however students who were keen


to use Mahara in the same way they used other SNSs, and sent friendship

requests to other students in Mahara the moment they started using it with-

out being told to do so, possibly carrying over behaviour learned from other

SNSs in a more positive way. Lack of willingness of peers to use Mahara the

same way they used other SNSs might have demotivated these students - it

is no good having friendships within a system if your friends are not logging

onto the system and using it. Some students also communicated through

writing on the walls of their friends asking each other about the progress

they were making on their practical assignments, but many received no re-

sponses, preventing conversation and ensuing peer learning from taking off.

The same problem of lack of willingness by other students to use Mahara

demotivated the students who were keen. It seems the way some students

used the social networking features of RUconnected was carried over to the

use of Mahara and the students could not adjust and start using the social

features of Mahara interactively.

The setup of the tutorial groups might also have affected the way the

students used the integrated system. As suggested by [4], students’ accep-

tance of peer learning and its ultimate success mainly depends on the setup

of the groups, the group tasks, group membership and how the group is held

accountable. In the CS1L2 class, the students were grouped according to

tutorial groups and they did not have an option to select the group of their

choice. This affected how the members of the group related to each other

which in turn affected group interactions. If the students were allowed to

select their own groups, it might have been easier for them to create close

relationships which would have led to increased interactions both online and


offline [50] and would have led to better interactions in Mahara.

5.5 Usability of the Integrated System

The reason the students and the tutors found the interface for Mahara prob-

lematic might have been the omission of training on its use. The users of the

system were given instructions on how to use the integrated system which

were uploaded on the test RUconnected. The assumption was that the tu-

tors being senior Computer Science students will learn how to use the system

very easily, by reading the instructions, and they will assist the students. The

assumption however proved to be incorrect and many students and some tu-

tors did not appear to have read the instructions. Even with the support of

tutors, some students could not master the process of creating and sharing

content in Mahara. The concept of using a page to hold the files was also con-

fusing to many students and they repeatedly asked the tutors to help them

check if the files were added to the page. The students are used to directo-

ries or folders holding their files rather than adding files to a page, as this

fits the standard Windows Explorer model used in the public computer labs

at Rhodes University, and the model used by RUconnected. As suggested

by Kear [20], a proper implementation plan with a clear purpose known to

students and tutors, either through training or an orientation session, was

very critical for the success of study.


5.6 Educational Benefits of Integrating a LMS

and a SNS

The students found using Mahara to have few direct educational benefits.

The possible reasons for this may have been how they used the social fea-

tures in RUconnected which carried over to Mahara as discussed in section

5.3 above; how the students were made to use the integrated system; or the

usability problems of the system. For example, one tutor created a shared

folder in Mahara where students were uploading their work in order to sim-

plify the process of submitting assignments through Mahara. This defeated

the whole purpose of using Mahara to assist the students to organise their

work which they could share with others and get feedback electronically.

Creating a single folder where students dropped in their work meant that

the tutor could not provide online feedback to individual students on their

work which they could access at the time of their convenience. The tutor be-

ing referred may have used the system in this manner because of insufficient

training on how to use Mahara and lack of orientation on the aim of using

the system for learning as discussed in section 5.5.

Lack of content in the system which was accessible to other students also

contributed to the integrated system being of not much benefit as a source

of information for both academic and non-academic purposes. As discussed

in section 4.10.2, most of the content the students created in the system

was limited to their profiles and the assignments which they uploaded to the

system which were not shareable with other students. The students did not

take advantage of the benefits of SNSs as suggested by [8] of helping stu-


dents move from being consumers of content which mostly happen in LMSs

to participating in the creation of content facilitated by the social features

provided by Mahara. There were however three groups out of the fourteen

groups in the system that discussed how to solve some of the problems on

one of the practical assignment they had through the forum in Mahara. The

content created through the interactions of these groups was, however, too

little to have a significant impact and the number of students involved in the

interactions was too small to obtain a positive response on the educational

benefits of their interactions.

One of the reasons the students were reluctant to collaborate on the

practical even though they were given the opportunity to do so might have

been the benefits the students envisaged would gain after participating. As

discussed by [4], students by nature are used to working individually and

competing with each other for grades and would only participate in group

activities if they see sufficient benefits for the time they invest in the group

work. In the practical work, the most likely benefit was the grade which some

students could have obtained by working on their own. The other reason the

students created little content which was shareable could once again be re-

lated to the organisational culture of Rhodes University where staff do not

encourage online peer learning and the limitation of RUconnected to support

content creation. It would have been useful to be able to poll the students di-

rectly on their responses, or be able to correlate which students responded to

the questionnaire with which students tried the group collaboration exercise,

but this was unfortunately not possible due to the anonymity guaranteed by

the survey.


The use of an unfamiliar SNS in the study might also have led to the

resistance from the students to use the social networking features in Mahara

and therefore not appreciating the educational benefits social networking can

have on learning. Many of the studies on the use of social networking as part

of learning which received a positive response used familiar SNSs like Face-

book which could be skewing the results of those studies; alternatively the

message might be that students do not like to try new technologies, although

feedback from the questionnaire suggested this was not the case initially.

There is, however, potential for social networking to make an impact on stu-

dents’ learning even with unfamiliar SNSs as evidenced from the responses

where the students indicated that they did not find being limited to interact-

ing with classmates frustrating. The students also responded that they have

no problems familiarising themselves with new systems, but possibly moti-

vation plays a big role. If the integrated system was used for a longer period,

and in most of the courses the students were registered, the students could

possibly have become very familiar with it, and the use of social networking

in their studies could have made a positive impact. Another indication of

this potential is one on the messages the author received from one of the

students at the end of the CS1L2 course which read “the way I understand

Mahara now, it is a pity that we will not use it again”. This suggests that

the students started to understand the aim of Mahara more each time they

used it, but that this understanding came close to the end of the test period

for some students, and might not have occurred at all for others.

Chapter 6

Conclusion and Further Work

6.1 Discussion and Inferences Drwan

In our study, the use of social networking for educational purposes did not

receive a positive response from the students as was the case with similar

studies discussed in Chapter 2 due to among other factors, the following:

1. The students were not familiar with Mahara, and had difficulties learn-

ing how to use the system due to the series of steps they were required

to perform to organise their work and to share with their tutors. This

together with no training being provided on how to use the system

made their learning of the system slow, leading to many students be-

ing frustrated. The period the integrated system was tested with the

students also proved to be short given the pace at which the students

were learning the system.

2. The students were already familiar with and very committed to using

76

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER WORK 77

RUconnected which led to their resistance adopting the use of the in-

tegrated system. The same also applied to their adoption of Mahara

because most students were already committed to using other SNSs like

Facebook where they had already established relationships with class-

mates and other friends outside their classes which was more appealing

than being limited to classmates only in Mahara. The students did not

initially seem to understand the reason of duplicating the relationships

which were already in place digitally elsewhere;

3. The limitation of the system being accessible on campus only (during

the first weeks of the system test) did not help in attracting students

to use the system. Students staying off-campus had a bad first impres-

sion of the system because of this limitation, and they preferred using

RUconncted alone (which was accessible off-campus) to using the inte-

grated system;

4. Having the students use Mahara formally to organise and submit their

work rather led to the students believing that the aim of Mahara was

for formal use and organisation as was the case with RUconnected

and test RUconnected rather than mainly as a social network where

informal learning and interaction could take place. This together with

the reluctance to use the social network for informal academic reasons

led to poor adoption and use of the integrated system.

In our study, most students created friendships in the system and col-

laborated on one of the assignments because they were requested to do so

and they did not naturally adopt social networking to support their learn-


ing. This was influenced by the problems discussed above and the way the

students were organised for peer learning. In the study, the students were

grouped according to their tutorial groups. The ideal situation would have

been allowing the students to organise themselves into peer learning groups

with close relationships among the members to promote their interactions,

and with no control of group interactions by staff as suggested by Boud et

al. [6].

The results of the study do not rule out the possibility that social net-

working services can have educational benefits if integrated in the students’

studies. For this to work, however, the problems experienced in this study

and discussed previously must be avoided/addressed as follows:

1. Proper training must be provided to all involved. As suggested by [20],

it is necessary to have a proper implementation plan with a clear pur-

pose known to all (students, teachers and tutors) who will be involved

and are key to the success of the idea. The assumption that students’

enthusiasm for SNSs like Facebook will be automatically transferrable

to their use of SNSs introduced to support academic development, and

that social networking platforms will automatically produce positive

results if used for academic support, is a mistake.

2. Students should be helped to see clear benefits in using the new system

to support their learning which are not offered by existing SNSs of

which they are a part. Students should embrace the idea of using

social networking in their studies if they see sufficient benefits (which

might be both academic and non-academic) for the time they invest

in social networking [20]. Among the benefits the students look for


in social networking are being able to interact with other students in

addition to classmates, and having freedom and flexibility in using the

SNS, like creating groups, as is the case in other SNSs.

3. Lack of system availability and other factors likely to cause frustration

must be planned and avoided;

4. The pedagogical reasoning behind the system must be clarified. On top

of this, educational institutions interested in using social networking to

promote peer learning should seriously look at the following before

implementing social networking as part of the e-support structures for

students’ studies:

• local and general factors involved in motivating students to use

social networking to support their studies;

• local and general factors that might prevent students from using

or wanting to use social networking to support their studies.

5. The educational institutions’ staff and policies would need to support

and encourage the use of the social networking in education as well.

6.2 Statement of Contribution Made to the

Field

This study contributes to the knowledge which already exists on the use of

social networking for the purpose of promoting learning. The results of the

study suggest that the use of social networking cannot automatically lead


to a positive learning experience for the students. A proper implementation

plan of the use of social networking for learning and adequate motivation of

the students to use social networking in their learning are key to the success

of the use of social networking to promote students’ learning.

6.3 Further Work

Future extensions to this study include an investigation of the following:

1. How students’ informal use of the Internet tools correlate to their formal

use of similar tools for learning and how this can affect the implemen-

tation of e-learning programs in formal education;

2. the extent to which the behaviour of staff influences the way students

use technology and the extent to which the students naturally carry

over this behaviour from formal environments into informal environ-

ments and how it affects their learning; and

3. whether using an application that works as a plugin for a SNS like

Facebook and offers features tailored for educational use but leverages

off the strong popularity of the SNS could create an e-learning support

tool that might be more enthusiasticalyl embraced by students.

Bibliography

[1] Anderson, T. The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. AU Press,

2008.

[2] Attwell, G. Personal learning environments - the future of elearning?

eLearning Papers 2, 1 (2007), 1 – 8.

[3] Becky. What is Podcasting. Online, September 2005. Avail-

able from: http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Internet/What_

is_PodCasting/.

[4] Blumenfeld, P., C., Marx, R., W., Soloway, E., and Krajcik,

J. Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative

communities. Educational Researcher 25, 8 (1996), 37–40.

[5] Bosch, T. E. Using online social networking for teaching and learning:

Facebook use at the university of cape town. Communicatio: South

African Journal for Communication Theory and Research 35, 2 (2009),

185–200.

81

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Internet/What_is_PodCasting/

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Internet/What_is_PodCasting/

BIBLIOGRAPHY 82

[6] Boud, D., Cohen, R., and Sampson, J. Peer learning and as-

sessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 24, 4 (1999),

413–426.

[7] Boyd, D., M., and Ellison, M., B. Social network sites: Definition,

history, and scholarship. Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008),

210–230.

[8] Conde, M., A., Garca, F., J., Casany, M., J., and Alier, M.

Merging learning management systems and personal learning environ-

ments. In PLE Conference 2011 (2011).

[9] Duermyer, R. Social Networks - Define Social Networks.

Online. Available from: http://homebusiness.about.com/od/

homebusinessglossar1/g/social-networks.htm.

[10] e Learning Consulting. Asynchronous e-Learning. Online. Avail-

able from: http://www.e-learningconsulting.com/consulting/

what/asynchronous.html.

[11] Elgg. About Elgg. Online. Available from: http://elgg.org/about.

php.

[12] FeedForAll. Videocasting Tutorial. Online. Available from: http:

//www.feedforall.com/videocasting-tutorial.htm.

[13] Gathercoal, C., Love, D., Bryde, B., and McKean, G. On im-

plementing web-based electronic portfolios. Educase Quarterly, 2 (2002),

29–37.

http://homebusiness.about.com/od/homebusinessglossar1/g/social-networks.htm

http://homebusiness.about.com/od/homebusinessglossar1/g/social-networks.htm

http://www.e-learningconsulting.com/consulting/what/asynchronous.html

http://www.e-learningconsulting.com/consulting/what/asynchronous.html

http://elgg.org/about.php

http://elgg.org/about.php

http://www.feedforall.com/videocasting-tutorial.htm

http://www.feedforall.com/videocasting-tutorial.htm

BIBLIOGRAPHY 83

[14] Gonzlez, C. What do university teachers think elearning is good for

in their teaching? Studies in Higher Education 35, 1 (February 2010),

61–78.

[15] Griffin, W. B., and Griffin, M, M. The effects of reciprocal peer

tutoring on graduate student achievement, test anxiety, and academic

self-efficacy. The Journal of Experimental Education 65, 3 (1997), 197–

209.

[16] Hrastinski, S. Asynchronous and Synchronous e-Learning. Online,

2008. Available from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/

EQM0848.pdf.

[17] Itmazi, J. A. eLearning. online. Available from: http://elearning.

ppu.edu/file.php/1/eLearning/elearning.pdf.

[18] Jahan, I., and Zabed Ahmed, S. Students’ perceptions of aca-

demic use of social networking sites: a survey of university students in

bangladesh. Information Development 28, 3 (August 2012), 235 – 247.

[19] Kane, J., S., and Lawler III, E., E. Methods of peer assessment.

Psychological Bulletin 85, 3 (1978), 555–586.

[20] Kear, K. Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in dis-

tance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and

e-Learning 19, 2 (2004), 151–164.

[21] King, C. Blended Is Better: Choosing Educational Delivery Meth-

ods. Online, 2005. Available from: http://hyperdisc.unitec.ac.nz/

research/kingmcsporranedmedia2005.pdf.

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0848.pdf

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0848.pdf

http://elearning.ppu.edu/file.php/1/eLearning/elearning.pdf

http://elearning.ppu.edu/file.php/1/eLearning/elearning.pdf

http://hyperdisc.unitec.ac.nz/research/kingmcsporranedmedia2005.pdf

http://hyperdisc.unitec.ac.nz/research/kingmcsporranedmedia2005.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY 84

[22] Laboratory, N. C. R. E. Portfolios. online. Avail-

able from: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/

earlycld/ea5l143.htm.

[23] Lado, A. Asynchronous e-Learning. Online. Available from: http:

//www.rau.ro/websites/e-society/lucrari/adrian%20lado.pdf.

[24] Lorenzo, G., and Ittelson, J. An Overview of E-Portfolios. On-

line, July 2005. Available from: net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/

ELI3001.pdf.

[25] Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellen, J., and Hooley, T. Facebook,

social integration and informal learning at university: ’it is more for

socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing

work’. Learning, Media and Technology 34, 2 (2009), 141–155.

[26] Mahara. About Mahara. Online. Available from: https://mahara.

org/about.

[27] McLoughlin, C., and Lee, M., J. W. Social software and par-

ticipatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in

the web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning.

Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (2007), pp. 664–675.

[28] Mislove, M., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K., P., Druschel, P.,

and Bhattacharjee, B. Measurement and analysis of online social

networks. In IMC ’07 Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM confer-

ence on Internet measurement (2007), pp. 29–42.

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea5l143.htm

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea5l143.htm

http://www.rau.ro/websites/e-society/lucrari/adrian%20lado.pdf

http://www.rau.ro/websites/e-society/lucrari/adrian%20lado.pdf

net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf

net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf

https://mahara.org/about

https://mahara.org/about

BIBLIOGRAPHY 85

[29] Moodle. Elgg integration block. Online. Available from: http://

moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=83788.

[30] Naidu, S. E-Learning: A guide of Principles, Procedures and Practices,

2nd. ed ed. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia, 2006.

[31] News, P. What is Podcasting? Online. Available from: http://www.

podcastingnews.com/articles/What_is_Podcasting.html.

[32] OECD. Recognition of Non-formal and Informal

Learning. online. Available from: http://www.

oecd.org/education/highereducationandadultlearning/

recognitionofnon-formalandinformallearning-home.htm.

[33] O’Hear, S. Elgg - social network software for education. Online, Au-

gust 2006. Available from: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/

elgg.php.

[34] Pempek, T., A., Yermolayeva, Y., A., and Calvert, S. L. Col-

lege students’ social networking experiences on facebook. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009), 227–238.

[35] Ractham, P., and Zhang, X. Podcasting in academia: A new knowl-

edge management paradigm within academic settings. In Proceedings

of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on computer personnel re-

search: Forty four years of computer personnel research: achievements,

challenges & the future (2006), SIGMIS CPR, pp. Pages 314 – 317.

[36] Rozac, J., Poganik, M. and, K. A., Buenda, F., and

Ballester, J., V. Integration of learning management systems with

http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=83788


http://www.podcastingnews.com/articles/What_is_Podcasting.html

http://www.podcastingnews.com/articles/What_is_Podcasting.html

http://www.oecd.org/education/highereducationandadultlearning/recognitionofnon-formalandinformallearning-home.htm



http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/elgg.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/elgg.php

BIBLIOGRAPHY 86

social networking platforms. The fourth International Conference on

Mobile, Hybrid, and Online Learning (2012), 100–105.

[37] Rowland, G. Elgg integration block. Online, November 2007. Avail-

able from: http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=83788.

[38] SearchCIO. learning management system (LMS). Online, Septem-

ber 2005. Available from: http://searchcio.techtarget.com/

definition/learning-management-system.

[39] SearchSOA. Weblog. Online. Available from: http://searchsoa.

techtarget.com/definition/weblog.

[40] Sensis. Yellow social media report: What australian people and busi-

ness are doing with social media. Tech. rep., Sensis, 2012.

[41] Singh. Building effective blended learning programs. Education and

Technology 43, 6 (2003), 51 – 54.

[42] Technologies, T. L. Asynchronous Learning. Online. Available from:

http://www.timelesslearntech.com/asynchronous-learning.php.

[43] Toppings, K., J. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology:

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 25, 6

(2005), 631–645.

[44] TrainingForce. What IS a Learning Management System? Online.

Available from: http://www.trainingforce.com/content/what_is_

a_lms.aspx.


http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/learning-management-system

http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/learning-management-system

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/weblog

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/weblog

http://www.timelesslearntech.com/asynchronous-learning.php

http://www.trainingforce.com/content/what_is_a_lms.aspx

http://www.trainingforce.com/content/what_is_a_lms.aspx

BIBLIOGRAPHY 87

[45] University, R. e-Portfolio Basics: What is an e-portfolio? Online.

Available from: http://academic.regis.edu/LAAP/eportfolio/

basics_what.htm.

[46] Wagner, C. Put another (b)log on the wire: Publishing learning logs

as weblogs. Journal of Information Systems Education 14, 2 (2003),

131–132.

[47] Welsh, E., T., Wanberg, C., R., Brown, K., G., and Simmer-

ing, M., J. E-learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future di-

rections. International Journal of Training and Development 7 (2003),

245–258.

[48] Werdmuller, B., and Tosh, D. Elgg – A Personal Learning Land-

scape. Online, 2005. Available from: http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.

jp/information/tesl-ej/ej34/m1.html.

[49] Worx, W. W., and Fuseware. South african social media landscape

2012. Tech. rep., Worl Wide Worx and Fuse Ware, 2012.

[50] Yu, A., Y., Tian, S., W., Vogel, D., and Kwok, R., C. Can

learning be virtually boosted? an investigation of online social network-

ing impacts. Computers & Education 55 (2010), 1494–1503.

http://academic.regis.edu/LAAP/eportfolio/basics_what.htm

http://academic.regis.edu/LAAP/eportfolio/basics_what.htm

http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej34/m1.html

http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej34/m1.html

Appendix A

Questionnaire

88

RUconnected ► Questionnaires ► The education value of a Social Networking Platform integrated with a

Learning Management System ► Questionnaire Report ► View All Responses

RUconnected

You are logged in as System Administrator (Logout)

View All Responses. All participants. View Default order Responses: 63

The education value of a Social Networking Platform integrated

with a Learning Management System

Project Title

The education value of integrating a social network platform and a learning

management syste

Project Description

In this project the researcher hopes to investigate the impact of integrating a learning

management system and a social networking platform on students' learning both

formally and informally and on their social interaction. The study is also aimed at

investigating whether there are effects on informal social interaction which might

feedback into learning and offer indirect educational benefits.

Researcher's Name: Chikumbutso Gremu

About Research

This research aims to understand the impact of integrating a Learning Management System and

Social Networking Platform on university students’ learning, both formally and informally, and on

their informal social interaction. The study is also interested in determining whether, if there are

effects on informal social interaction, this might feed back into learning and offer indirect

educational benefits. The study uses Moodle as a Learning Management System and Mahara as

a Social Networking Platform.

It is hoped that this questionnaire will provide insight into the way students use technology in their

daily lives to directly support their learning activities, and also into whether or not a Social

Networking Platform can support learning indirectly.

In addition, we hope to identify those factors which both negatively and positively impact on the

use of a Social Networking platform and its associated e-learning features for the purposes of

teaching and learning.

View Advanced settings Questions PreviewAll responses (63)

View All Responses

View Default order Ascending order Descending order Delete ALL Responses Download in text format

View By Response

RUconnected: Questionnaire Report http://g12g1792-4.ict.ru.ac.za/moodle/mod/questionnaire...

1 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

Please note: Your participation is completely voluntary and you can refuse to participate in

answering any of the questions in this questionnaire. In addition, all information retrieved during

the course of this study/questionnaire will be treated as strictly confidential. Data that may be

reported on in the research report will not include information that identifies you as a respondent

in the study.

CONSENT FORM

1. I have received information about this research project

2. I understand the purpose of the research project and my involvement in it

3. I understand that I may withdraw from the research project at any stage

4. I understand that participation in this user study is done on a voluntary basis

5. To my best knowledge I have no physical impediments that will stop me from completing this

study

6. I understand that while information gained during the study may be published, I will not be

identified and my personal details will remain confidential.

1. I have read and agree with the 6 points listed above

Response Average Total

Yes 100% 63

Total 100% 63/63

Section A: Personal Information

2. Your age range


18 - 24 98% 62

25 - 29 2% 1

Total 100% 63/63

3. Gender


Male 40% 25

Female 60% 38

Total 100% 63/63

4. Degree for which you are registered and associated faculty (e.g. BSc., Science).

# Response


2 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

1 BA Law and English

1 B.PHARM

6 BA

3 bpharm

8 Bpharm

1 BA Law

12 BPharm

1 BA., Humanities

1 Bcomm, Psychology

1 BSc Law

1 BSc., Science

1 BSc, Science

1 BA, HUMANITIES

2 BPHARM

4 B.Pharm

1 No

1 b.pharm

4 BSc

1 B.PHARMACY

1 B. Pharm

1 B.Pharmacy

1 B PHARM

1 Pharmacy

1 BPharmacy

1 humanities: Social Science

1 BPharm, Pharmacy

1 BSS

1 b-pharm

1 Bsc Science

1 B/Pharm

1 BPharm.

5. Year of study


3 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11


1 75% 46

2 16% 10

3 2% 1

4 7% 4

Total 97% 61/63

For Sections B and C below, please respond about your use of

RuConnected and Social Networking Systems BEFORE CS1L course.

Section B: Use of RUconnected

6. Do you use Rhodes University RUconnected (hosted at ruconnected.ru.ac.za)?


Yes 100% 59

Total 94% 59/63

7. If you answered Yes in the above question, how often do you use RUconnected for the

following purposes?

Average rank

Never Seldom

Almost

Often

Frequently

Accessing course materials 3.8

Submission of course assignments 2.9

Interacting with peers on academic work 1.7

Interacting with peers on non-academic work 1.3

Interacting with academic staff on academic

work

2.1

Interacting with staff on non-academic work 1.3

Formal collaboration on academic work e.g

group assignments

2.0

Assessing work of peers 1.6

Other 1.4

8. If you use RUconnected for other purpose(s), please specify them in the space below.


4 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

# Response

1 downloading lecture slides

1 look for grades and notices

1 None

1

I use ruconnected to view academic work.

9. Which features of RUconnected do you find most useful? Please tick all the appropriate

answers


Discussion Forum 5% 8

Online sssignment submission 23% 39

Downloading of course materials 37% 61

Instant messaging (Chat) 2% 3

Online Calendar 8% 13

Online news and announcements 20% 33

Online quiz 5% 9

Other 1% 1

10. If you selected other in the question above, please list the other features in the space below

# Response

1 None

1 Test and tutorial results

11. How effective is RUconnected in terms of the following?

Average rank

Not

effective

at all

Less

effective

Moderately

effective

Very

effective

Giving or obtaining help from peers on

academic work

2.3

Interacting with peers for non-academic

purposes

1.7

Obtaining help from lecturers 2.8

Obtaining learning materials 3.7


5 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

Section C: Use and familiarity with Social Networking Systems

12. Which social networking sites have you ever used? (Tick as many as you have used)


Facebook 32% 61

Google+ 17% 32

LinkedIn 3% 6

Hi5 2% 3

Flickr 5% 9

Myspace 7% 13

Netlog 3% 5

Badoo 2% 3

Twoo 2% 3

Twitter 19% 35

Tagged 2% 3

LiveJournal 1% 2

Friendster 2% 3

None 1% 1

Other 5% 10

13. If you have selected other in the question above, please list the other social networking sites

you have ever used in the space below

# Response

1 skype, msn

1 Gmail chat and skype

1 Skype

1 instagram,whatsapp,mxit,

1

whatsapp

bbm

1 whatsapp

1 Mig33 and Mxit

1 Whatsapp and Mxit.


6 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

14. For what purpose(s) do/did you use social network sites? (Tick as many uses as you use)


Connect with friends and family 21% 61

Make new friendships 10% 30

Information and News gathering 11% 33

Free SMSs 6% 16

Sharing media 11% 32

Research 6% 16

Blogging 2% 6

Searching for jobs 2% 5

Accessing entertainment 9% 26

Playing games 6% 16

Share opinion 7% 20

Interacting with brands 2% 6

Accessing educational materials 7% 20

Other 1% 2

15. If you selected other in the question above, please list the other uses in the space below

# Response

1

Whatsapp

16. Which features do/did you find most useful on the social networking sites you use(d)?


Chat room 6% 18

Instant messaging 16% 52

Image uploading 13% 41

Blogging 2% 6

Social networking groups 9% 29

Forumns 2% 5

Games 4% 13

Tagging 6% 19

Messaging (similar to email) 13% 43


7 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

Photo sharing 12% 39

Listening to music 6% 20

Friendship management

(Accept/Deny)

11% 34

Other 0% 1

17. If you selected other in the question above, please list the useful features in the space

below.

No responses for this question.

For Section D, please respond in terms of where you are right now,

having used Mahara system integrated with RUconnected during the

CS1L course.

Section D: Impact of integrating a Learning Management System and a

Social Networking platform

18. Please rate the impact of having Mahara integrated with RUconnected across the following

metrics

Average rank

No

impact

at all

Minimal

impact

Moderate

impact

Great

impact

Establishing new connections or relationships

with other students

1.8

Strengthening existing connections or

relationships with other students

1.8

Widening access to a variety of information 1.9

Accessing help from fellow students 1.9

Simplifying collaboration on academic work 1.9

Simplifying the process of obtaining and

providing feedback on academic work

1.9

19. Please rate the usefulness for learning of the following features provided by Mahara

Average rank

Not

useful

at all

Less

useful

Moderately

useful

Very

useful

File repository (File uploading, storage and

downloading)

2.1


8 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

Blogging 1.7

Social Networking (Interacting with peers) 1.9

Building and displaying your profile with

additional feature provided on RUconnected to

other users

1.9

20. Please indicate the extent to which the following statements apply to you

Average rank

Not

applicable

Less

applicable

Moderately

applicable

Very

applicable

Having a social networking platform

integrated with RUconnected made me

log in more often to the system than I

used to do using RUconnected alone

1.5

The new features Mahara offered were

useful to me

1.8

There is direct educational benefit in

using Mahara software

2.0

I used social networking features of

Mahara to get to know my classmates

better

1.7

The integrated system made it easier

to find people to work with for informal

peer learning, or to contact about

course-related matters (e.g. Finding

someone to ask about a test or

something similar)

1.8

I found that I could take advantage of

the connections I made for other

academic purposes

1.8

I found that I could take advantage of

the connections I made to totally

non-academic purposes e.g. using the

social network component to arrange

to meet friends

1.6

I found the interface for the social

network easy to use

1.9

I am only interested in using familiar

social networking software like

Facebook or Twitter

2.7

I dislike familiarising myself with new

software

2.0

I found being limited to interacting with

classmates frustrating and would have

2.0


9 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

used Mahara more if I had been able to

interact with friends who are not in my

class

I found integrating social network

features in learning very distructive

2.1

21. If you used Mahara for purposes other than course work, please specify what you used it for

in the space below

No responses for this question.

Thank you so much for taking your time to complete this questionnaire. If you have any queries,

please do not hesitate to contact me on [email protected]

Documentation for this page

Rhodes University | RU Library | Student Zone

You are logged in as System Administrator (Logout)


10 of 10 10/10/2012 10:11

Documents

The Educational Value of Integrating a Learning … University The Educational Value of Integrating a Learning Management System and a Social Networking Platform Submitted in partial